You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Courtesy of Jaclyn Glenn:
The highlight comes at the 9:30 mark
In case you missed it, my interview with Comfort is here.
Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.
“Sometimes people are worthy of being insulted in the worst possible way.”
I found the frank tone she used in this video refreshing. I am tired of those militant faitheists trying to push their faitheism on the rest of us.
How do you push faith onto someone? That seems to me to be a cop out.
People are pushed into faith through repetition of bombast, science denial, apathetic threats of eternal damnation, empty promises of eternal happiness, childhood indoctrination, and societal brainwashing through political manipulation.
You are talking about kids, I presume. Adults can simply walk away. You can raise your children the way you want and will use the same reasons you have provided me, except they will be atheistic.
You are proof that some adults cannot just walk away from even an obviously foolish deception.
Also, it’s quite impossible to use the underhanded tactics that many religions employ (e.g.: threats of eternal torture or mind-numbing enticements of paradise promised by loved ones and authority figures) to indoctrinate children with atheistic beliefs. All I can do is raise my child to be a good person and help her learn to use her mind for herself.
Are you suppose to walk away from a blog? Come on, blogs were made for communication engagement.
Are you feebly trying to imply that this blog is a deception of some sort—I really can’t tell. And what is communication engagement; do you just mean communication? You do know that engagement is implied by the word communication right? No one here is a preacher that just expects to throw words at a captive flock.
I do not know where you got that I am implying that this blog is a deception.
Engagement, intercourse, exchange; could all be used. It isn’t necessarily the first definition you come to in the dictionary.
Alright, fair enough if you missed the point of my pedantic aside highlighting your repetitive word choice.
Please explain what you did mean by “Are you supposed to walk away from a blog?”. Blogs have nothing to do with the comment you were replying to—so I was forced to search for some cryptic meaning.
You said, “You are proof that some adults cannot just walk away from even an obviously foolish deception.”
I just took it to mean that you think I simply will not drop out and leave. Must have misunderstood your comment.
Sorry, I assumed that you are an adult and that you are a theist. If these are true, then you are proof that some adults can’t walk away from religion (ie. an obviously foolish deception).
Keep in mind, the same thing can be said of you by theist. (ie. an obviously foolish deception). But I refrain from belittling people.
Is it just words that end in ‘ist’? They get an ‘s’ at the end like most others. It’s not that hard.
Well, it is for the Rat. I’ll try to do better.
Eh, I doubt that.
I love how CM just plain not understanding my initial comment at all has already turned into a thread of something like eighty and counting. I can only imagine how boring it would be here on Friendly Atheist this morning if CommentMaker could read.
Sadly, my boss (who lives out of state and comes out every 6 weeks or so) will be here this afternoon and he sits right behind me when he is, so eventually I will have to leave the conversation until later. Damn work, gets in the way of my entertainment.
Why don’t religious people just pay us money to make fun of them all day? Because they’re jerks, is why.
First off, what you typed here reads like this: …theist, in other words, an obviously foolish deception. This is funny but doesn’t make any sense.
Secondly, it is not deceptive to encourage free thought.
And third, one thing that is obvious in your post is that you do intend to belittle me—albeit a thinly-veiled attempt.
“You have an anger problem and live in misery. I would not want to be like you in any form. Your face will soon take on features of your anger. I feel sorry for anyone you shack up with or marry.”
-Commentmaker, trying to think of any sexist way he can come up with to belittle a woman for stating that she doesn’t appreciate the First Amendment being violated.
You indoctrinate them from a very young age, before they have developed their ability to critically think. Then you use fear to convince them that if they disbelieve or even question their faith, then they will burn for eternity. Kids in these conditions don’t know any better, because they were taught to not know better.
The way you look at it happens to be the wrong way. However, if I were an atheist and indoctrinated my child to not believe in God and that he/she is stupid and dumb if he/she ever does believe, then what? I don’t think that is right at all. That type of negative reinforcement is terrible. The difference between us is that once they receive God’s grace and are born again they have no fear of hell fire anymore. They live a life of peace and joy. With you, they will always feel they are stupid and dumb if they ever wanted to believe. That is how atheist come across to believers.
Where and when does atheistic indoctrination ever happen?
Same place every child is indoctrinated, by watching their parents and listening to their conversations. More is caught than is taught.
That’s not indoctrination. Perhaps you should take some time to learn about the subject before trying to lecture other people about it.
You can define it the way you want to fit your way of living, but indoctrination comes in many forms.
If you don’t want to use common definitions and create your own to suit your purposes then it’s your prerogative to look desperate and dishonest. I wouldn’t expect less from a fundy.
The definition existed before I came along. Clearly you are pathetic. You have to lie and distort to make your point. That’s what I expect from an immoral fundy.
Learning is not the same as being indoctrinated.
Children watch the patterns of their parents. That may not be frontal indoctrination but it indoctrinates the child through repetition knowingly or unknowingly.
“Frontal indoctrination”? Isn’t that just the opposite of what pastors and priests do to children?
I knew your mind would head that way so you can try to offend me. Didn’t work. Grow up.
Oh, I wasn’t trying to offend to you. If Christians were offended by child rape, there wouldn’t be any Christians anymore.
Ouch! LOL but Ouch!
Semantics for the sake of argument perpetuation. I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand the difference between learning from example and being instructed in the ways of a doctrine (indoctrination).
If I know my ways are instructing my child without having to teach them, I know I am indoctrinating them. Mine would be indoctrinating them because I have a distinct mission with my children. I know what you are saying. It is very clear.
The only “indoctrination” that happens on the atheist side is that vast majority of atheist parents DON’T push their atheism on the child, but rather, educate the child on how to think critically, apply skepticism, and apply logic and reason. The whole point is that the parents don’t want just another drone that’s echoing what they think. They want children who can think for themselves, and arrive at their own conclusions.
This is pretty much the exact opposite to how religious parents raise children.
Logic and reasoning should always come to the same conclusion, but it doesn’t. That is why there are so many different ideas of how evolution works.
The only problem with children thinking for themselves, and arriving at their own conclusions is that it makes for a bad atmosphere in a restaurant.
“Logic and reasoning should always come to the same conclusion, but it doesn’t. That is why there are so many different ideas of how evolution works.”
They do, if everyone is in possession of all the facts… but that never happens. That doesn’t render their use pointless, however. We’re still talking about cognitive tools that drastically increase the accuracy and success rate of coming to true and accurate conclusions about reality.
Scientific progress, such as the principles for which our computers work, were discovered through iterative reason/logic/evidence hypothesis-testing… not because we sat around, fasted until we hallucinated, and asked spirit animals how semiconductors work.
> That is why there are so many different ideas of how evolution works.
Another nonsense claim. There’s only one way it works – sex. The others are only in your weird imagination.
So, it all goes back to sex. (head shake)
Fucking reproduction again. Filthy fucking nature–God sure must’ve been some kind of pervert. And He watches all of it, too!
Just remember; God know what turns you on, and he makes it forbidden!
What a tool…
CommentMaker actually said the “Jesus in dog’s asshole” picture couldn’t really be Jesus because Jesus wasn’t that attractive. I can’t make this shit up.
Sex is actually not required for evolution. It’s just one of many ways for producing new combinations of alleles in a population. And in event, the mechanisms of how evolution happens isn’t quite the same as our models of how it works.
. That is why there are so many different ideas of how evolution works.
No. There is exactly one idea of how evolution works. It’s called the modern evolutionary synthesis and has been the consensus for the last 60 years. Go learn some biology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
The problem is, no one can explain exactly with reason and logic how life began. Is it a lightening strike in a mud puddle? One living form that is neither male or female? How long did it live before separating into a separate form that could reproduce like kind? How did that happen? Too many ifs. The lottery does not have that many ifs. Evolution has way too many holes in it to be absolute.
“The problem is, no one can explain exactly with reason and logic how life began. ”
Actually, abiogenesis. Miller-Urey experiments. But, no, that’s a topic we haven’t figured out yet. So what?
That doesn’t mean you get to shoehorn your sky wizard in as a solution. That’s something you’d actually have to demonstrate.
“One living form that is neither male or female?”
It probably didn’t start with one, in the same sense that all icicles during the winter don’t spawn with one. If the environment is right, they form. And yes, sexuality took awhile to appear. Asexual organisms are common.
“How long did it live before separating into a separate form that could reproduce like kind? How did that happen? Too many ifs. The lottery does not have that many ifs.”
We can know nothing about how lightning works… but it never becomes rational to assert sky wizards as the solution without evidence.
“Evolution has way too many holes in it to be absolute.”
Wait.. why are you talking about evolution? You were going on and on about abiogenesis.
“Wait.. why are you talking about evolution? You were going on and on about abiogenesis.”
Because according to him, they are one in the same thing. Along with the big bang, palentology, and…well…science. All filed under “Work of Satan.”
Care to elaborate?
You’ve been embarrassingly demonstrably factually wrong on virtually every statement you’ve made so far.
One living form that is neither male or female?
There are many living forms that aren’t male or female, I don’t see what the big deal is.
How did that happen? Too many ifs. The lottery does not have that many ifs.
The lottery has less than 12 ‘ifs’, and they’re not mutually exclusive.
1) You are talking about abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather with the differentiation of life once it has begun.
2) We don’t know how life began. We have several plausible theories, though. A general overview of the different theories of abiogenesis can be found here. One specific set of experiments that showed spontaneous generation of amino acids (a known precursor to life) can be found here.
Sidney W. Fox did a set of experiments that show that amino acids can spontaneously form peptides, which under certain circumstances form closed circular membranes and exhibit many characteristics of life. This was in the 1950s and 1960s; this is not new.
In the 1970s, Manfried Eigen did a lot of work to discover the smallest possible organism in terms of RNA bases. To quote, “M. Sumper and R. Luce of Eigen’s laboratory accidentally discovered that a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA” that looks very similar to that very simple life-form with only ~50 nucleotides.
So basically, we know that amino acids can spontaneously form. We know that those amino acids can spontaneously form peptides. We know that under certain plausible conditions, those peptides form life-like structures. We know that RNA bases and amino acids (both of which can spontaneously form, remember) together can create self-replicating RNA strands.
So, what insurmountable holes does abiogenesis (NOT evolution) have again?
The existence of questions only highlights the need for further study, not the need to renounce the system that teaches us everything we know.
Please do not presume that I am questioning how we got here. We could make up 10,000 or more possibilities that have no substance.
But you already have your one unsupported assumption of how we all got here, so why bother looking for any other answer, right?
Are you responding to the correct comment? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning (because questions, then no evolution). It’s an obvious flaw—one that you don’t see fit to apply to thousands of other everyday things that are being researched.
“Logic and reasoning should always come to the same conclusion”–only if all the minds that employ them are equally perfect.
How many different ideas on the mechanisms of evolution are you familiar with?
I do not study evolution. I am only familiar with ideas of how it began and there are too many leaks in the idea. The living thing would have had to live for millions of years to evolve to a point of reproduction. That would have been determined, not evolution.
“I do not study evolution.” Obviously. “I am only familiar with ideas of how it began” Obviously not. “and there are too many leaks in the idea” And you know this because of your vast expertise in …?
How what began? The study of evolution?
You don’t study evolution, so you have no place asserting: “That is why there are so many different ideas of how evolution works”. You discredit yourself by making bold statements that you can’t even respond to, let alone support intellectually.
Thank you for admitting you are both a liar and a charlatan.
Now please go away.
“The vast majority of atheist parents DON’T push their atheism on their children”. Do you have stats? Do you know, personally, every single atheistic family? Do you know every single Christian family? Broad, overgeneralized comments like that one are exactly why no one in this country can agree on anything. “Everybody” who is X acts Y. No exceptions. Every Christian is a controlling, child abusing, rape-supporting evil, stupid person. Every atheist is an ignorant, stupid, controlling know-it-all who wants to murder babies. Ever occur to anyone that the negative phrases used to describe both sides are often pretty similar? Also, in a similar vein to my comment above, you presuppose that EVERY child raised in a Christian household has no ability to make up their own mind. Which goes against the fact that a lot of people change religions once they get older. Maybe everyone (not just you) needs to stop putting labels on others based on what they are, and focus on who they are.
“Do you have stats? Do you know, personally, every single atheistic family? Do you know every single Christian family?”
Nope, I don’t. I speak from the information I’ve encountered. Almost across the board, every atheist parent I’ve heard has stated explicitly what I did, and most often, the heavily religious parents take the position I’ve stated.
Maybe my sample size isn’t large enough, but it does seem to hold up very well. I don’t need to know every single person on the face of the planet to observe a trend.
“Ever occur to anyone that the negative phrases used to describe both sides are often pretty similar?”
Sure, in the same sense that Cargo-cult scientists frequently use scientific jargon. It’s also occurred to me that one side can be demonstrably correct, and the other demonstrably incorrect.
“Also, in a similar vein to my comment above, you presuppose that EVERY child raised in a Christian household has no ability to make up their own mind.”
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. In fact, I specifically stated the opposite – that many of them are able to think their way out.
More importantly, whether they “make up their own mind” isn’t even the deciding factor… not when the flow in information is so controlled, or the “making up their own mind” is heavily influenced by lies and coercion.
The issue isn’t about thinking. It’s about critical thinking and access to accurate information. Logic needs to be both sound and valid for it to work.
“Which goes against the fact that a lot of people change religions once they get older.”
How does it contradict? At what point did I say that people only start believing in God through childhood indoctrination? Being in a culture that de-emphasizes critical thinking, intellectualism, and emphasizes spirituality and superstition, results in a large portion of people who are prone to gullibility, especially when they get older, and start considering topics like their own mortality.
“Maybe everyone (not just you) needs to stop putting labels on others based on what they are, and focus on who they are.”
Believe it or not, categorization is a key component to parsing reality. Bad, unfair, or dehumanizing categorization is to be avoided, but when there’s a greater trend of religious parents indoctrinating children, and it’s a demonstrably true pattern, it’s fair to put a label on it… and I daresay, makes communication easier, since all words are labels for concepts.
Evidence: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/14/why-arent-atheist-parents-raising-atheist-children/ and its sources. Google is your friend.
And much of what you have written is straw.
Depends on the parents concerned, but on the population-wide scale you are correct.
The rhymes let us feel the truthyness of your wisdom.
I know that if I hear my son repeating something I’ve said and I don’t think he has a clue what it means, I say, “I agree with you but could you tell me why you think that?”. If he doesn’t have support for it, we either talk about what could count as support or I ask him to keep that idea with in the family since other folks might call him on it. What I’m doing is about as far an indoctrination style of parenting as possible.
When we’re talking about Catholic indoctrination, we’re talking about forcing the child to go to church, go through the rituals, take first communion, be educated in the doctrine… etc.
Observation is not indoctrination… otherwise, my observations of what the chipmunks do around my yard is them indoctrinating me.
Apparently, you do not read and retain well. We are talking about parents, nothing else.
BTW, my Christianity has nothing to do with Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses or any other denominational religion. Most, if not all, are a works based form of religion. My belief is based upon the regenerational work that takes place when God’s grace gives me faith to see the finished work of Jesus Christ. Through that faith I can trust Him completely, I am reborn and the entire Trinity comes to dwell in me and lives through me. Any other religion that does not hold that should not be used to confirm anything you believe against Christianity. True Christianity is based upon grace through faith alone, not of works lest anyone should boast.
“True Christianity is based upon grace through faith alone” Oddly enough, this point is in dispute amongst the several christian sects and religious trolls. You can’t expect us to remember the theology of each of you.
Clearly CommentMaker is the only true Christian in the world.
It’d be like listening to all the Linux Distributions all arguing about which is the “true Linux”
The various linux distros remind of bacterial genomics. So far as I’m concerned, all bacteria (at least the eubacteria) are a single ring species. But yeah, the endless partially overlapping subsets thing makes categorization semi-pointless.
Well, I don’t know. They say atheist are smarter than Christians. Up to you if you want to learn the religions you despise.
Many of us became atheists because we learned the religions.
Then if you want to grow your base, what should you push? Use the tried and true methods that work.
Exactly – skepticism, reason, logic, critical thinking, and evidence-based investigation – you know, the things that actually tend to work.
Our application doesn’t have to be perfect for them to be useful. Aiming at a target still drastically improves the odds to hitting a bullseye, than not aiming at it.
While I’m not perfect, and I may in fact have faith in something, if it’s pointed out to me, I will, all T-1000 style hunt it down and terminate it.
As a rationalist, my goal is to maximize the effectiveness of my cognitive skills; to raise my success rate at consistently accurately assessing reality around me; to habitually avoid common psychological and logical errors (religiosity is indistinguishable from a composition of cognition errors); … to ensure that my beliefs are as accurate as possible.
I care that what I believe is true, and will do whatever it takes to maximize whatever true beliefs I have, and minimize how many false beliefs I have.
While faith may not be instantly fatal, it’s like taking your eyes off the road. You can do it briefly on occasion, and get away with it, but the longer you do it, you increase the chances of getting into an accident, approaching certainty.
I guess I do not see faith or belief like you do. I think you have both. I believe in exercise. You wouldn’t think it by looking at me, but I do. Arnold Schwarzenegger (in his hay day) believed in exercise, and still does. If we stood next to each other in a speed-o (blink blink) there would be expressions of cheer and disgust at the same time. My point here is, belief in something reveals itself in everything we do, everything we say and everything we desire. You have expressed a desire to be everything you can be with as little error as possible, even if you call religion error. More power to you. I do the same thing but from a religious standpoint. That is how much I believe in God. I am not perfect either, God is though and He has applied His righteous to me through His Son who suffered and died and rose again. That is why I do not live in the fear of hell but the belief in who God is.
You “believe” in exercise because there is a ton of research that indicates it is good for us. It’s not the same as having “faith” in a religious sense.
Keep in mind, the only research 60 years ago was that exercising enlarged the muscle. When you believe in exercise and that becomes your lifestyle you exhibit a body that is developed properly.
So your “belief in exercise” is based solely on what research was around 60 years ago..?
You claimed that there was a ton of research that indicated that exercise was good for us. Men exercised 60 years ago without all of the research we have today. You lost the example so you could eliminate the good it produces. You have the typical atheist mindset of twisting everything around for your pleasure.
Do you grasp this basic concept that science existed before 60 years ago? Even proto-science predates Christianity.
You know.. basic observation of reality, evidence gathering and reason/logic? It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that people who were more active improved physically.
Gyms and aerobics did not exist in popularity until we were educated in exercise in the late 60′s early 70′s. Go figure.
You are mistaken, and your knowledge of history is lacking. The importance of exercise in general and aerobic exercise in particular has been known for a very long time. The very word “gym” goes back to the Ancient Greek γυμνάσιον (gymnasion).
If you want US-specific examples, consider the Turner movement and the YMCA – both of which date to the mid-19th century. You may thank the YMCA for the invention of basketball: Naismith was asked to invent a game that would be interesting, have relatively simple rules, and provide plenty of cardiovascular exercise while being played indoors during the winter.
It happens that people having dedicated facilities and time for exercise becomes more important from a public health standpoint when fewer people have jobs that involve a lot of exercise.
And you continue to disregard people’s explanations of why what you have written is wrong and I need to get back to work, so I am done.
Now you’re moving the goal posts.
Yes, clearly, for thousands of years, soldiers of old didn’t do any kind of exercising or training. No one ever noticed that working out gave them extra stamina, or built muscle.
Now you’re just in full-on denial mode.
Of old, they learned tactics like Judo. It was repetitive and was used in war. They did exercise but it was not with the same understanding we have today.
Moving the goalposts again.
Of course they didn’t have the same understanding “we have today”. They didn’t need to have an advanced knowledge of molecular biology to observe and understand that exercising = improved physical capacity.
It’d be very difficult NOT to notice that.
The bottom line is, this “believing in exercising” is not something that is equivalent to faith. It’s been evidence based, even without the advanced scientific knowledge, for thousands of years.
What we call the scientific method is simply a formal application of reason, logic and evidence… something we’ve been informally doing as long as we’ve been sentient.
.. and is yet another topic that religion has provided any kind of valuable insight.
They could still see empirically that exercise is beneficial. My point was that “belief in exercise” is in no way equivalent to religious belief. Also, what Jasper said.
The example was that those who believed in exercise developed a body with a structure of well formed muscles. They worked on it day and night. That is what we become when we believe in something we want to accomplish. We live for it. Come on, get a life.
I have a life, thank you.
that won’t do….there’s all the military draftees throughout history who no doubt HATED exercise, but did it under duress, and still developed muscle tone and cardiovascular endurance. That’s the thing about *reality*: It PROVABLY works whether you believe in it or not.
Or….. you just don’t get it.
Keep in mind that “believe in” is different from “believe that”… so yes, we’re apparently talking about drastically different things.
Belief is accepting a claim as true. Faith is doing so without good reason, or in the face of contrary evidence. There’s a lot of different definitions of “faith”, such as “trust”, “confidence”, “loyalty”, “religion”, etc… but the pertinent one is “belief without evidence”. That’s even Biblically definitional.
In that sense, I endeavor to make sure I’m believing things based on evidence, as much as possible.
“You have expressed a desire to be everything you can be with as little error as possible, even if you call religion error. More power to you. I do the same thing but from a religious standpoint.”
I don’t see how that’s possible, unless you have sufficient scientific evidence… and if you did, it wouldn’t be faith anymore. Where are the controls, the falsification, the testability? By what process are you mitigating error? “Just believe it” is the exact opposite of mitigating error.
If someone is not taking sufficient steps to mitigate human error, that person is not concerned that his/her beliefs are true.
“That is how much I believe in God.”
I’m less concerned in how much you believe in God, then how.
“I am not perfect either, Gpd is though and He has applied His righteous to me through His Son who suffered and died and rose again.”
And this is where mitigation of human error comes in. How, exactly have you ruled out the placebo effect, confirmation bias, availability heuristics, memory error, priming, etc? What objective peer-reviewed, controlled, blinded source of evidence do you have to confirm that the belief is accurate?
If you haven’t, then I can’t take seriously the idea that you care that your beliefs are true.
First, faith is simply obeying what God has said.
“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” Numbers 21:8
Jesus said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:14, 15
Belief is accepting a claim is true and obeying it or putting it in action.
You want me to think critically, but it can’t be. I know because of the Spirit who called me. Explaining it to you is futile. God has to explain it to you. If He doesn’t I feel sorry for you.
Thank you for stating that you have rendered yourself incapable of thinking critically. This is one of the major counterpoints against organized religion, and one of the reasons we oppose it being foisted on people against their will, by force of law.
So if your god doesn’t explain it to every individual to their satisfaction of understanding, is your god inept or evil?
Why can’t it be both?
It can always be both.
Read the Bible and you will find out.
Your god orders people to murder their children, promotes slavery, orders genocide against entire nations, murders indiscriminately through diseases, condemns anyone who doesn’t follow every command, TO THE LETTER, to eternal hellfire, demands your eternal love as a major requirement to escape that hellfire…and you even admit that everyone who thinks they are saved won’t know it for sure until after they’re dead. You can’t deny that you live in fear of what may happen if you offend him. You can’t deny that if he deemed you unworthy, then nothing you do could ever get you back in his good graces.
Yeah, I’m going to say that your version of god is an abusive, narcissistic, extremely petty, jealous, misogynist, personification of a man, and certainly not deserving of my love or loyalty, much less faith. He sounds like too much of an asshole for me to want to put any faith in him ever again.
And yes, I deconverted 20 years ago, because I was sick of the fear tactics and hatred that religion brought into my life. I’ve become a much snarkier, but more open minded person, because of that deconversion.
You didn’t answer the question. Hell you didn’t even finish your sentence. I’m gonna read the tech manual.
$: man God ‘God’ not found
” I’m gonna read the tech manual.”
Have you tried calling tech support?
Oh wait, probably in India, not going to help much here.
“First, faith is simply obeying what God has said.”
Awesome. I’ll note that down as the 12th definition I’ve heard for “faith”… *jots down* “Obedience to tyrannical invisible sky wizard”… got it.
“Belief is accepting a claim is true and obeying it or putting it in action.”
Uh.. no. No it’s not. I know the religious love to make shit up, but we’re not falling for it. Can you find a listing for that definition in any dictionary? I don’t typically like arguments about dictionary definitions, but if one can’t even FIND it in any of the listed ones, that should be a red flag.
“You want me to think critically, but it can’t be.”
Don’t worry. We figured that out long ago.
“I know because of the Spirit who called me.”
How do you know? Knowledge is demonstrably true belief. If you can’t show it, you don’t know it. Knowledge isn’t “I really really really believe it!”
“Explaining it to you is futile.”
Exactly. You can explain Harry Pottery to me until you’re blue in the face. That doesn’t make it real. DEMONSTRATING it, is what I’m asking for.
“If He doesn’t I feel sorry for you.”
I’m having a blast here in reality.
To prove something you must put it in application. Reason and logic is flawed. You need to test it as if it is true and allow time to prove the results. That is the atheist problem with biblical principles.
I assume you mean the application of reason and logic, because that’s already readily admitted. I’d like to hear an logical absolute that you think is flawed.
Yes, we do hypothesis testing… you know, using the scientific method – the only process humanity has that can be shown to consistently work.
… and here you are, telling me about it, using the computer which is bursting at the seams with knowledge that reason and logic produced, surrounded by all sorts of advanced technologies that similarly only exist because of that “flawed logic”.
… whereas faith/religion, on the other hand, hasn’t produced any knowledge about the world. Whenever they claim they have, it’s because they’ve applied reason/logic/evidence.
Religion/faith have zero knowledge-producing capacity, and zero predictive capacity. Their only claims to knowledge are when engaging in postdiction, warping and stretching definitions to make Biblical verses, for example, sound vaguely like something we’ve figured out through science.
You say logic/reason is flawed.
At least it works… at all.
Reason and logic is flawed.
No. They aren’t. Because we designed them, and they work.
And Jasper has covered much of the other nonsense with your comment.
Are they in our laws and Constitution?
That is one impressive non sequitur.
Our application of reason and logic may be flawed, but they’re still a lot more reliable than deciding in advance that one particular book of mythology (out of many on offer) is the wisest book in existence and then refusing to accept any evidence from reality that seems to contradict the contents of that book.
I simply live what I believe every day. You do to. That is it.
… and one of us operates on what’s demonstrably true, while the other does not. One of us is fine allowing fantasy to rule our perception, and the other is not.
Believe what you want.
I won’t. I’ll believe what’s demonstrably true. That’s what RATIONAL people do.
Name one thing about your faith that is demonstrably true; i.e. that would point specifically to your god and yours alone, that can be independently and repeatably verified.
I am content and have peace in my life. I love everyone, even atheist. I do not have tension toward any person and help others when they are in need. You will not accept that as proof, but it is the truth.
So if an atheist or Muslim feels the same way, that’s a proof that the Christian God, the Muslim God and No God is true, all at the same time?
I’m sorry, but you don’t have the faintest idea how evidence works… which I’m not finding surprising.
The proof is, the Muslim and atheist do not possess the same love and peace a Christian possesses.
the Muslim and atheist do not possess the same love and peace a Christian possesses.
Bullshit! Prove it.
Show me a quantification of how much love and peace that I have, and a quantification of how much love and peace you have.
Fail to do so, and I will take that as an admission on your part that you are utterly full of crap.
You are totally epistemologically incompetent.
The “love and peace” of Christianity seems to be about as much as delusion as the rest of your claims.
And you know fully? No.
Again you retreat to the absolutes.
Observation. Do I really have to cite some of your own posts at you? Calling someone “screwed up” for being raised as a Jew in a Christian environment? For being distrustful of atheists because of your bigotry towards us?
I’m sorry, but you can keep your “peace and love”.
“You will not accept that as proof, but it is the truth.”
It may be true, but it in no way could be possibly construed as proof, or even evidence.
It’s a basic exclusion principle. If the “evidence” can equally support multiple contradictory claims… it’s worth jack shit.
That’s maybe not entirely fair … it would be truer to say that atheists are on average better educated than religious people (though note that that’s only an ‘on average’ statement). That is to say, the more someone learns about reality, and the more they hone their skills at honestly evaluating reality, the less likely they are to be persuaded by the claims of religions, which all make some sort of assertions that they cannot provide any good evidence for, but which they demand that you believe anyway.
So, if smart people are the sort of people who enjoy finding out about reality, and people who find out a lot about reality are the sort of people who are less likely to believe religious claims, that’s where your correlation is going to be coming from – an indirect one. In ancient times when our ignorance about reality was so overwhelming that ‘a supernatural being did it’ was as good as anyone else’s guess, it would have been a lot easier for smart people to be be religious. Now, they still can, but it’s harder, and it’s harder because we know so much more, of what we have discovered, none of it supports a supernatural hypothesis.
Incidentally, this ought to worry you if you think that the claims of your religion are true.
The claims of my religion do not worry me in the least. Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3, ” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Until you know what Jesus meant to “see the kingdom of God” you will never understand Christianity. Seeing the eternal eliminates any question or skepticism. It is not about reasoning, logic or evidence. The thing is, you may never know. Sad.
“It is not about reasoning, logic or evidence.”
There’s your problem, and that absolutely encapsulates the problem of why theists believe that faith trumps facts.
And there you have it folks. They don’t need any logic, reasoning, or evidence to come to these conclusions, but if you pray hard enough, YOU can dispense with all those things, too!
Unfortunately, you have missed the mark. You just don’t get it because of what you believe. I cannot and will not change your belief system. You have yours and I have mind. Both exist.
False equivalency. I can back up that which I believe through observation, reasoning, logic, and facts. Critical thinking helps, of course.
You are only able to back up what you believe through the application of faith, and you effectively claim that the evidence will become self-evident through that faith. It’s recursive, and it doesn’t prove anything, because again, you claim that the evidence will magically present itself, if by some measure, one is deemed worthy.
It’s all smoke and mirrors, because anyone can claim that, and not provide even the faintest hint of evidence. HOWEVER, that does nothing to prove the claim true, much less that it has merit.
You’re right though, you can’t come to the conclusion you have through critical thinking, reasoning, facts, or logic, because you must disregard all of those in order to get the perfect 10 score in mental gymnastics that is required for the judges… err, god, to give you the answer you seek.
” Seeing the eternal eliminates any question or skepticism. It is not about reasoning, logic or evidence. ”
No. No it doesn’t. Otherwise, it means that anyone who REALLY believes that they had an experience, it’s true – such as, UFO Abductees.
Or, it renders all the OTHER religions that you think aren’t valid, true too, because they’re chalked full of people who also claim to have “seen the eternal”.
Otherwise, it renders the option indistinguishable from hallucination. We hold ourselves to a higher (or at least some level of) standard, where the claims actually have to be evidently demonstrably true.
If you tell me about this experience, my first question to you will be “How have you distinguished it from a hallucination?”. If you instruct me on how to replicate the experience, and I do, and now I believe exactly what you believe, I have still not answered that question. All it means is that I’ve managed to reproduce the mind-altering effects that cause the delusion.
If what you say cannot be substantiated without a sober mind, it is useless to anyone who gives a single shred of a care about reality.
Your religious beliefs have destroyed your basic capacity to distinguish delusion from reality.
” it means that anyone who REALLY believes that they had an experience, it’s true – such as, UFO Abductees.”
Are you saying I wasn’t really probed?
Are you sure it was aliens?
There are people into some really weird things these days.
I’m not saying it was aliens, but…
Are you sure you didn’t just get REALLY wasted, and wake up in a confessional?
That was the OTHER time, I’m pretty sure about that probing
“The claims of my religion do not worry me in the least.”
That wasn’t what I said, and I think you know it. The fact that the claims of your religion become less convincing to people the more educated they become (on average) is the thing that ought to worry you: if belief in a set of claims is positively correlated with ignorance of humanity’s collective discoveries about reality, that is strongly suggestive that those claims are probably not true.
“Seeing the eternal eliminates any question or skepticism. It is not about reasoning, logic or evidence.”
If I may paraphrase you here, it looks like what you are trying to say is that you’ve had experiences which have both robbed you of your ability to differentiate reality from fantasy and, even worse, robbed you of your ability to care whether or not your beliefs are based on reality or fantasy. In which case we are entitled to wonder why you are here trying to argue your case, since you admit that no process of reasoning could ever validate them. We are also entitled to find it patronising that you call people ‘sad’ because they go through life without ever having their baloney detectors destroyed.
So I ask you this: if you’ve had an experience that you interpret as ‘seeing the eternal’, how do you know that what you thought you experienced actually has any source outside of your own neurology? And how do you account for the myriads of people in other religions who claim to have had equally transcendent experiences but who use them to back up religious beliefs that are utterly at odds with yours?
Mainly because mine corresponds with Scripture. It is different than you can explain humanly, though similar. Can’t explain it to you unfortunately. You can only experience it and others who have experienced it will be able to understand. Don’t know what to say to help you understand.
Scientific evidence would be a great start. You know.. demonstrating that you aren’t batshit insane.
If you can’t explain or support your assertions, then why are you even here?
Thing is, it is not difficult to find Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others who believe that their numinous experiences accord with their scriptures. One of my friends is an adult convert to Judaism who reports having these experiences of (as she sees it) being in the presence of God, and she is just as convinced that these experiences validate Jewish scripture as you are that yours validate Christian scripture. And Buddhist scriptures famously go into great detail about how to deliberately train yourself to be able to have these sorts of numinous experience, all while claiming that they validate the specific claims of Buddhism. How is an honest observer to decide between these mutually incompatible claims?
If you can’t come up with a way to independently verify these claims, the only reasonable assumption is that human neurology lends itself, at least in some people, to having these experiences of at-one-with-the-universeness, but none of the competing religious claims about the source of these experiences are true.
I recall a long protracted argument with another christian troll who was saying that he could tell True Christians (TM) by their acts, and anyone who merely claimed to be a christian, believed in Jesus, and asked him to forgive his sins, was not a True Christian (TM).
I’d like to see these two different True Christians (TM) duke it out.
Was it The Inconsistent Atheist from these threads by any chance? That would be an interesting rumble
It was William Butler. A particularly tenacious and bitter troll. He infuriated me because he kept using terms like ad hominem and “strawman” incorrectly. Instead of actual answers to posed questions, he would simply put up links, or paste bible quotes (like we’ve never seen that before!).
His entire spiel was one big No True Scotsman fallacy – denying it in one sentence, and then saying in the next sentence things like “most Catholics aren’t true christians, anyway.”
“Apparently, you do not read and retain well. We are talking about parents, nothing else.”
Apparently, you are unable to extrapolate a broader point from an example I was making.
Parents are very much capable of engaging in the same process on behalf of a belief system.
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
“BTW, my Christianity has nothing to do with Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses or any other denominational religion. Most, if not all, are a works based form of religion. My belief is based upon the regenerational work that takes place when God’s grace gives me faith to see the finished work of Jesus Christ. Through that faith I can trust Him completely, I am reborn and the entire Trinity comes to dwell in me and lives through me.”
Nice word salad. Thanks for that.
” Any other religion that does not hold that should not be used to confirm anything you believe against Christianity. True Christianity is based upon grace through faith alone, not of works lest anyone should boast.”
Nice followup with a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I’m not even talking about Christianity. I’m talking about theists, regardless of whether they’re Mormon, Catholic, Patafarians, Scientologists, Unicornists, etc.
Gee, don’t you remember telling me a while ago that salvation by works vs salvation by faith is merely a political disagreement?
That may be what you heard but it is not true. Salvation through grace by faith without works is true salvation. Ephesians 2:8
That may be what you heard but it is not true.
Psalm 62:12 For you render to each one according to his works.
Proverbs 10:16 The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord … give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Ezekiel 18:27, 30 When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness … and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul. (V.27)
I will judge you … every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. (v.30)
Matthew 5:20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Matthew 19:17 If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Romans 2:6, 13 Who will render to each one according to his deeds. … For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
Philippians 2:12 Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
James 1:22 Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves
James 2:14, 17, 21-25 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? (v.14)
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (v.17)
Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (vv.21-25)
1 Peter 1:17 The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work.
Revelation 2:23 I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.
Sorry, the works come from a changed heart. That is the proof of a change that comes from a born again experience.
“…works come from a changed heart. That is the proof of a change…”
Could someone whose heart has not changed do the exact same works? How does doing works “prove” a heart has changed?
You can’t know. But it comes from Matthew 25:34-40
So basically it’s the more evil of the two options. It’s not that people have actually done anything to deserve it… it’s just being a member of the invisible dude fan club.
(James 2:24) – “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”
(Matthew 19:16-17) – “And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
It says in Galatians 2:16 “”knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
It is not of works, but faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. The works will follow which is the proof of salvation.
“for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them” Romans 2:14, 15
It’s literally a description of cronyism… it’s not how hard you work, or what good you do, it’s who you know.
“Who you know”, that sounds like politics. The Muslims have you beat there.
I’m afraid I don’t get what point you’re trying to make.
But you’re right. It is politics – right smack dab in middle of the theology you’re laying claim to.
Salvation through works at least had some redeeming virtue, as it rewards people who do good… but the salvation through faith only lets you on the ship if you’ve managed to get into the captain’s clique.
The Christian god is one of the most immoral, self-absorbed, sociopathic entities every described by literature. The Bible is utterly oozing with evil.
Works salvation has no benefit. Our sins against the holiness of God is like rape, murder, stealing, hate crimes and such. How do you think God is going to allow what ever good works you come up with to overcome the offense against His holiness. You miss the mark in your reasoning. You would not forgive me if I raped your daughter even if I mowed your yard til you died. That really is dumb. No one can appease God because His holiness far exceeds our good works.
“Works salvation has no benefit.”
So why even try?
“No one can appease God because His holiness far exceeds our good works.”
Wow! Good thing he made us so wonderfully in his image and likeness because we are apparently scum to him.
We do not try. We simply accept the works of Christ. He live the perfect life we could not. He was murdered (sacrificed) and will apply His perfect life to us if we simply look to Him. That is not complicated.
“That is not complicated.”
Or rational. Or coherent. Or logical.
It has the benefits to the people who are helped. I’d think that an entity that’s touted as being “good” would care about that sort of thing.
“Our sins against the holiness of God is like rape, murder, stealing, hate crimes and such.”
It’s really telling. This is how screwed up your world view is. What does it matter what God thinks here? It only matters if he’s a tyrannical authoritarian totalitarian dictator.
What’s wrong with rape, murder, stealing, etc, is that it HURTS OTHER PEOPLE. To hell with God.
The reason why I don’t murder my neighbor isn’t because I’m worried the judge won’t like me. It’s because I care about my neighbor, and don’t wish harm on them. The judge is irrelevant to that decision.
You say you’d be afraid of atheists in in control. I’d be pissing my pants in sheer terror if YOU were.
“How do you think God is going to allow what ever good works you come up with to overcome the offense against His holiness.”
Why can’t he? Is he not omnipotent? He set up the rules to the game, supposedly.
This is why your god is astonishingly egocentric. Who gives a shit if he’s offended? This isn’t about him, it’s about the person whom I’ve hypothetically harmed.
“You miss the mark in your reasoning. You would not forgive me if I raped your daughter even if I mowed your yard til you died.”
No, this is moving the lawn of the judge to get my forgiveness. You didn’t do diddly squat to get atonement from me.
What do you think I’ve done that is so evil, that it would take more than a couple-hundred dollar fine to atone for?
I barely even speed, let alone do anything horribly bad.
It’d help if his standards weren’t ridiculously absurdly high where my parking in a handicap spot is apparently worth an eternity of torture.
Oh wait, that’s what Pure Evil overlords do.
How does one offend or hurt an omni-max and perfect being?
In the presence of God there can be absolutely no sin. The holiness that is His is expected of His Creation. Mainly innocence, but that did not occur, however, it is better because we have become sons of God through Jesus Christ. That is why Christ came, died and rose again to apply His righteousness to humans that received Him as Savior. Soon, everything else will be burned up or disappear through His vengeance.
Since atheist believe that there is no God and death is the end of existence, they can live peaceable lives without condemning Christians.
In the presence of God there can be absolutely no sin.
That’s contradicted by the Bible (book of Genesis and Exodus off the top of my head). Additionally, if god is omni-present, then god is in the presence of sin. It also doesn’t make logical sense from the standpoint that god supposedly can’t have sin in his presence, but can certainly make beings that are capable of it?
That is why Christ came, died and rose again to apply His righteousness to humans that received Him as Savior.
Which, again, makes no sense. But, it’s not like Jesus was above being immoral, as he did some immoral things. If sin is defined as doing what god wants, then he might have been sinless, but then it would not be synonymous with being moral.
Soon, everything else will be burned up or disappear through His vengeance.
What does a perfect being need with vengeance?
You are the one condemning us, by claiming that we are destined for hell and that we deserve it. How are atheists condemning anyone?
Single dimensional thinking is a problem with atheists reasoning and logic when it comes to God. God is eternal. that puts Him in a completely different dimension than us. He would have to live in a different dimension because of what you said. In eternity God can see the beginning from the end and visa versa. You cannot explain eternal things and neither can I. But we can know that eternity does exist since we live in a universe that has light coming from billions of light years away. Science cannot explain or determine eternity or eternal things. It is simply something that only God possesses.
“But we can know that eternity does exist since we live in a universe that has light coming from billions of light years away.”
Eternity >>> billions of light years. The size of the universe in no way shows eternity exists.
“You cannot explain eternal things and neither can I”
And yet you know god is eternal and what his wants and needs are?
Single dimensional thinking is a problem with atheists reasoning and logic when it comes to God.
It has nothing at all to do with that and everything to do with you jettisoning concepts that are inconvenient. You wish to contend that god is omni-max and perfect, but disregard those things when they don’t fit your narrative. For instance, god was present with Adam and Eve after they sinned. You claim that is impossible, but your Bible claims it happened. I’ll also point out the logical impossibility I pointed out of a supposedly perfect being creating imperfect things. In fact, I would point out that a perfect being would have no need to create anything at all. The problem isn’t mine, it’s yours for positing absolutes.
In eternity God can see the beginning from the end and visa versa.
That would be what omni-max entails, yet he couldn’t see Adam and Eve eating the fruit? This is a contradiction.
But we can know that eternity does exist since we live in a universe that has light coming from billions of light years away.
This is nonsense.
It is simply something that only God possesses.
Based on what? The only thing you’ve given us is your unsupported assertions.
Who said God didn’t know Adam and Eve would eat the fruit? If God claimed to see the beginning from the end you have to apply the thinking the He knew what Eve and Adam would do. However, you can never see the good for the believer from this story. Man went from living as a man to living as God’s children in eternity through the transformation He made through His Son. But you don’t believe that and will simply live in your single dimensional world till you die.
The obvious trap of logic here is that it’s implying that the reason for sin isn’t this world isn’t because of anything other than your god setting up Adam and Eve to fail the test in the first place…
This of course makes your god an asshole, because the whole reason we have the concept of original sin, from your perspective, was because of this test being failed. It was a test that was specifically engineered to fail, and it’s the equivalent of killing a lab animal for doing exactly what you expected it to do in the given lab conditions.
Romanticize it all you like; justify it however you wish. But that doesn’t change the implications that your god is abusive, petty, jealous, and vengeful. “You better love me, so I don’t do the things I’ll do to you for not loving me!” It’s the same sort of logic that abusive people use, and it’s no more justified (in my opinion, even less so) when attributed to a supposedly omni-max deity.
Atheism’s reasoning and logic in this case is warped and perverted at the same time. That is what is wrong with single dimensional reasoning. Jesus comes along and both past and future beings with those who have trusted God’s promise and have been converted. The conversion does not make us better humans, it makes us God’s children to be like Him after we shed this humanity. Believe what you want, but no one can make this up over 1500 years and be so accurate. You certainly have the privilege of doing what you want, but I will choose to follow Him. If I die like you and nothing happens afterward, I have lost nothing.
Atheism’s reasoning and logic in this case is warped and perverted at the same time. That is what is wrong with single dimensional reasoning.
Again, it has nothing at all to do with “single dimensional reasoning.” It has to do with you and your religion making up stories that are not self-consistent and full of logical contradictions. It’s not my fault that your stories don’t pass muster.
The conversion does not make us better humans, it makes us God’s children to be like Him after we shed this humanity.
Or, we burn in hell as god intended for us from the start. If god truly is omni-max, then we must be predestined for either heaven or hell from the get-go. IOW, if I go to hell, it is because god designed the universe that way and I don’t have a chance to alter that course. That’s a logical consequence of an omni-max deity. Free will cannot exist, and is a poor excuse anyway, but the fact remains that this god of yours, who is supposed to be all-loving, has created beings simply for the reason of being able to torture them for eternity.
Believe what you want, but no one can make this up over 1500 years and be so accurate.
This is rather poor reasoning. You have yet to point out what it is that is accurate about your faith. Also, length of time is irrelevant in this. There are older faiths than Xianity, but I don’t see you claiming that they similarly must be true.
You certainly have the privilege of doing what you want, but I will choose to follow Him.
Stop using the word “privilege” because you are intending to downplay the privilege that you and your jack-booted Xian friends have and enforce over all non-Xians in this country. We don’t always have that choice (much better word) and certainly not if your ideas of god are accurate.
If I die like you and nothing happens afterward, I have lost nothing.
Pascal’s wager is another terrible argument.
You have accurate information about the fact that we are predestined. Seeing it and shaking a fist at God is not the right response to someone who could offer heaven. That is suicide.
That makes no sense. If we are predestined, then it doesn’t matter what we do. So, you are Calvinist?
Yes I am Calvinist, with a portion of human responsibility. There is a verse most Calvinist do not put in practice.
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” 2 Corinthians 5:20
That means that if I offer the gospel to anyone, they are just as called as the elect. The offer has been given to you. How do you respond?
1. This has always struck me as nonsensical. If you believe in predestination, then this verse makes no sense, as it directly contradicts the idea of predestination (although that’s par for the course when it comes to the Bible). If one is not predestined to be part of the elect, then one cannot become part of the elect. That’s kind of what “predestination” means.
2. Do you honestly think that no one has ever tried to proselytize to me or others here before? Do you honestly think I’ve never heard of the gospels before and never read them?
3. Simply quoting passages is not compelling. I need evidence and reason in order to be swayed, just as you would in order to start believing in other gods. If I told you that the one true god is Zeus, you would want to be convinced, with reason, logic, and evidence. Yet, you think that I should simply believe as you do without those things, simply on your say-so. In fact, you think it’s perfectly fine for you to believe what you do without those things, which is a double standard.
Who said God didn’t know Adam and Eve would eat the fruit? If God claimed to see the beginning from the end you have to apply the thinking the He knew what Eve and Adam would do.
Then, god intentionally created beings for the purpose of torturing them in hell for eternity, and you conclude that’s a good thing. You’re still having issues reconciling the idea of an omni-max god. Your story is not consistent with your assumptions.
Why would god need to create anything at all? That’s left unanswered.
What do you think was meant by this verse:
“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” Romans 9:22
Although I’m not seeing the relevance, it’s an apologetic argument that starts out (in context) stating that might makes right, and then claiming that god is doing things in order to show how great he is. This doesn’t answer the question as to why god would need to create anything at all. It also doesn’t answer any of the objections I brought up about how your story leads to a god that intentionally creates humans so that he can torture them in hell for eternity.
I gave you a verse from the Bible that addresses your comment. It seemed clear to me. Now, you have gone to the Wizard of Oz. Talking about fairytale thinking. (head shake)
You still have not answered why god would have to create anything at all, or why he would need to be glorified. A perfect being would need nothing and have no reason to do any of those things.
And, I see that in lieu of actually answering my objections you’ve decided to hand-wave them away. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. You are positing a god that intentionally creates humans in order to send them to hell for eternal torture. You can’t very well claim that this god is omni-benevolent.
Let’s just say He didn’t need glorification from His creation. Maybe it was for us to declare to be something He wants us to be. Why do bodybuilders lift heavy weights? It is a mystery but has interesting results we can see. We are dealing with an eternal God. We will find out why we were to glorify him and why others were destroyed. If you want to argue, go ahead. I’m not!
Let’s just say He didn’t need glorification from His creation.
Then, why do it? Your Bible verse claims that he did it for glorification. A perfect being should have no needs, and therefore no desire to create.
Maybe it was for us to declare to be something He wants us to be.
This is nonsensical to someone who holds to predestination. Don’t argue positions that you don’t hold.
Why do bodybuilders lift heavy weights? It is a mystery but has interesting results we can see.
Actually, it’s not a mystery at all.
We are dealing with an eternal God. We will find out why we were to glorify him and why others were destroyed. If you want to argue, go ahead. I’m not!
Sorry, but you can’t hide behind the old, “god works in mysterious ways” bit. You’re positing logically contradictory things and you can’t simply hand-wave those things away. You also can’t claim that we will find out “why we were to glorify him” while claiming that he didn’t need our glorification just a couple sentences previously. I suppose you are going to claim that he didn’t need it, but wanted it, but that would, again, be contradictory and not follow logically. That’s the trouble with absolutes, and you are wading through a ton of contradictions that you have no way out of, except to jettison the absolutes that you’ve set up for god. But, if you do that, then you open the door to a god that is not perfect, not benevolent, etc. The Xian conception of god fails due to this, and we can safely conclude that it is a fiction.
The thing I have discovered about you is that you simply want to argue every point no matter if it is true or not. How do you live in that mind-set?
Um, no. I argue points that are wrong. If you make a point that is correct, I’ll either let it go or agree with you. You have yet to do so.
You’re posting logically contradicting ideas that don’t add up. You can’t avoid that by changing the subject and trying to attack me in an ad hominem fashion.
“they can live peaceable lives without condemning Christians.” If the christians would be so good as to stop forcing us to participate in their worship (like before everycity council meeting), we’d be happy to live peaceably.
The only problem is, atheist cannot accept that there are others who have a desire to have an outside force oversee a meeting. If God is not there, you should have no problem if you really believe that there is no God. Let them have their way and move on. It is simple. We do it all the time with other religions and atheist. Grow up!
Oh hell no! Would you accept me leading prayers to Cthulhu before council meetings? Since all my friends in the audience would be on board, you’d be under social pressure to chant along. Imagine then that when you rise to speak, the audience shouts you down and the chair of the board asks for you removal for being ‘disruptive’ when you don’t chant along? Your asking us to tolerate being discriminated against is a moral flaw in you.
Personally, if the majority were atheist I would simply pray to myself. Learn the principle of getting along with the majority.
You really need to take a trip to India or Saudi Arabia. Clearly your lack of empathy for people who are not like you shows that your emotional system is damaged. I suggest the travel so you can get perspective and hopefully experience clear discrimination. This isn’t for punishment so much a tiny hope that you open your eyes.
Christ is all I need. It is enough that Jesus died and that He died for me. Very simple.
And that nicely sums up why I’m anti-theist. You willingly over look the harms done to the weakest in society and can’t spare them empathy because you need to keep your Jesus worship front and center regardless of who pays in suffering for you to have that benefit.
Everyone has the same opportunity with Christianity. If you do not take it you have the privilege of living like you want. I have the freedom, like you do, to believe like I want to. If it offends you, I cannot change that. You do not offend me at all. Try to be like me. You can live a better life.
“Everyone has the same opportunity with Christianity. ”
Except for all those countless millions who lived in a time or place without access to christianity.
” Try to be like me”
Arrogant, ignorant, condescending?
That is too bad.
Yeah, it is too bad that your arrogance and willfully discarding your critical thinking skills ends up being inflicted upon reasonable people. Fortunately for us, you’re also not very good at debating, which is why most of your comments aren’t being given much credence.
Everyone has the same opportunity with Christianity.
No, we don’t. We live in a majority Xian country where Xians are doing their damnedest to make sure that non-Xians don’t have the same opportunities.
If you do not take it you have the privilege of living like you want.
No, we don’t. That’s what privilege means. You have the privilege of living in a country that caters to you, while we live in a country that attacks us.
I have the freedom, like you do, to believe like I want to. If it offends you, I cannot change that. You do not offend me at all. Try to be like me.
This isn’t about being offended by your beliefs, but by your actions. Really, I could care less what you believe, just keep it to yourself. If Xians didn’t try to enforce their Xianity on everyone else, we’d have nothing to argue about.
So, what you are saying is that you want the majority of Americans to give up their right to public prayer so a few atheist can enjoy no religion. That doesn’t sound very American to me. Why doesn’t America just give up to the Jihadist?
So, what you are saying is that you want the majority of Americans to give up their right to public prayer so a few atheist can enjoy no religion.
No one has the right to enforce public prayer. No one has the right to use public time/money to proselytize to others. Xians have the right to pray all they want on their own time, even in public. No one is claiming that they don’t. What I’m saying is that Xians think they have the right to force everyone else to listen to their prayers on government expense, which is a right they absolutely do not have. What I’m saying is that you and other Xians think you should have special privileges that non-Xians don’t get. We are pushing for equal rights and equal protections under the law for all. You are whining that your special privileges are being taken away so that others get to have rights.
If a majority of a county were involved in the KKK and a they wanted to open every county board meeting with the mission statement of the KKK, would you think that blacks that live in the county should just shut up and sit down, or would they have a legitimate gripe?
Why doesn’t America just give up to the Jihadist?
False dichotomy. It’s not either Xianity or Islam.
The very thing that supposedly offends you about religious things being put on government property will double in the open arena. If you are truly offended, and I know you are not, you will be twice as offended with Christmas coming up this year, especially around my house.
The very thing that supposedly offends you about religious things being put on government property will double in the open arena.
Wrong. Churches are allowed to put up manger scenes all they want, and atheists have not tried to stop them. Private residences can do the same. But, hey, why don’t you show me up and go ahead and do it. Get together with all your Xian buddies and take all the manger scenes down from courthouses and public property and display them all on your own lawns and churches. In fact, that would be horrible for us atheists, so please, please, please go ahead and do that.
Of course not. That level of obnoxious selfishness is offensive to people who do not share such beliefs. Respect for your beliefs does not mean allowing you to run roughshod over anyone else in public.
Its especially bad when done in part of government service. It gives the impression that those not of the same faith should expect to be discriminated against.
If you can’t keep it to yourself or show a modicum of respect for the beliefs of others in public, people are going to be hostile. Such hostility is well deserved.
The problem for you is that the meeting may consist of all Christian with the exception of you. Why do the majority have to suffer because you simply cannot allow them to appeal to their God? Just sit back. You do not believe in God and that is that, simply put. Who cares? You shouldn’t since you know more than the Christians. Get over it.
Who cares, you ask? We do, and so should you; it’s very telling that you don’t see the conflict of interest with religion dictating and furthering the tyranny of the majority. You would think it immoral for another religion to push their religious views as law, especially when they contradict your own morals. And yet, it’s not a problem when it’s a religion you agree with. See the hypocrisy? We sure do. Aside from the facts that the government pushing a purely religious agenda is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and that it is unconstitutional, and that it is the use of the government to further a particular religion in favor of others? There are still plenty of things wrong with that outcome.
We care, and so should you, because when Christians are no longer in the majority, the rule of law we are trying to advance will also protect them from being marginalized by the government. The government is supposed to be neutral to religion, as per the Establishment Clause, with a wall of separation between church and state.
Theists love to ignore that, pushing religious indoctrination in public schools (the so-called “Good News Clubs” are but one example, and an odious one, as it encourages religious bullying.)
They are pushing prayer heavily favoring Christianity in city council meetings (even though it blatantly FAILS to represent the non-Christians the council is there to represent, which is why even if 100% of the populace is Christian, it’s still a violation of the Establishment Clause.)
Oh, and of course, using religion as a justification for bigotry (just one recent example, the florist in Washington State, who was sued because by refusing to provide flowers for a gay couple’s wedding, she violated a state law that makes such discrimination a crime.)
I don’t even need to go into how homophobic and misogynist some of the laws being pushed by would-be theocrats are…the evidence is already damning enough, and undeniable.
These are all reasons why we should care about what religion does, when it comes to the rule of law. The religion in question doesn’t matter; the percentage of the population that follows that religion is also irrelevant. What matters is that no religion is to be given special rights over all others, and that religious discrimination against anyone, irrespective of their beliefs, should no longer be a reality.
Changing is the problem. Knowing that the biblical principals work is no reason to change. That is wise. Homosexuals need to find a new and different platform to work form. Changing from biblical standards will affect the norm. Get over it.
That’s precisely the problem. You can’t dictate biblical morals as law in a secular society, especially one that has been built upon a secular Constitution. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of a theocracy, and the shitfits that theocrats throw whenever “Sharia Law” is mentioned, is VERY telling of just how unhappy they would be if it were forced upon them. So if it’s not right when someone else does it to you, then it sure as fuck isn’t right when YOU do it to anyone else. Fucking hypocrites. Live by the Golden Rule, if nothing else.
So Christian morality = might makes right?
Selfishness, insularity and bullying = Good Christian behavior?
Seems that way.
How very unchristlike Christians like yourself are.
No wonder fundamentalists like yourself are so hell bent on destroying democratic ideals. Democratic ideals are creating fundamental limits on government and society to protect those not in the majority from being turned into non-people.
Why do the majority have to suffer because you simply cannot allow them to appeal to their God?
SMH…How does the majority suffer from having to follow the law? How does the majority suffer from others having equal rights? Do heterosexuals suffer from allowing gays to get married? Your argument is full of fail.
Today’s atheist mindset is like the KKK. You have a single hatred toward religion based upon your own biases. The KKK never amounted to anything and neither will atheist. Your hatred of religion is going to be your downfall.
You didn’t answer my question. Let me post it again:
How does the majority suffer from having to follow the law? How does the majority suffer from others having equal rights? Do heterosexuals suffer from allowing gays to get married?
Irrelevant ad hominem attacks, as you posted above will be considered an admission that you have no argument and concede.
Following the law is no problem, however, when it is really acceptable to have a manger scene on the courthouse lawn and a small group in another state takes issue with it, then it doesn’t make sense. It is not about religion. You just use the law to get rid of something no one has to look at. Your offense is not sustainable under the law. It is not against the law to have a manger scene on the courthouse lawn, either. But go ahead and cram it down everyone’s throat. You will see it in more places now and have a greater offense than before. You just don’t get it.
When all the government buildings are festooned with the iconography depicting the horrors that took place at lost Kadath and Abaddon’s hand is lain in the letterhead of all court documents, I’ll remind you that you had a chance to be secular (separate the State and the several Churches) but choose instead to keep them unitied. My Lord Cthulhu will rule the earth and then we’ll see what your pitiful prayer gets you.
Will you take the choice of Randolph Carter and go home? Would you be able to resist telling the priests of Nasht and Kaman-Thah your plans? I don’t know that you have the strength.
Following the law is no problem, however, when it is really acceptable to have a manger scene on the courthouse lawn and a small group in another state takes issue with it, then it doesn’t make sense.
Putting a manger scene on the courthouse lawn is not following the law and it is not acceptable.
It is not about religion.
It most certainly is about religion. It’s about Xians using government property to display their religion to the exclusion of all others and non-religion. It’s you pushing for special privileges that others don’t get.
You just use the law to get rid of something no one has to look at.
IOW, you agree that it’s against the law and are complaining that it’s against the law because you want special privileges and to be held above the law.
Your offense is not sustainable under the law.
It’s not about offense, it’s about equal representation and protection under the law.
It is not against the law to have a manger scene on the courthouse lawn, either.
Yes, it is. It’s in violation of the First Amendment.
But go ahead and cram it down everyone’s throat.
WTF? Xians pushing their religion on everyone by making the state publicly display and celebrate their religion is what is cramming it down everyone’s throats. Telling them it’s against the law is certainly not. That would be like claiming that telling people they aren’t allowed to murder someone else is cramming it down everyone’s throats. It’s silly and ridiculous.
You just don’t get it.
Oh, I get it quite well. I understand how secularism and separation of church and state work. I understand how your religious privilege works. You are the one that doesn’t seem to get it. You don’t get to enshrine your religion as the official state religion. You don’t get to enshrine your religion as officially sanctioned by the state, no matter how large a majority agrees with you. Rights are not up for popular vote, and we all have the right to worship (or not) as we please in this country. You do not have the right to try to take that away from everyone who isn’t in your cult.
Oh, and I’ll say it again, you didn’t answer the questions I posed.
Your questions do not have answers that you can accept. It has not be proven and may never be proven. You just want your way as if it will be ok and everyone will live happily ever after. You may need to provide proof that everything will work out fine. But, there has never been an atheistic society to gather historical facts of good that comes from what you ask.
Your questions do not have answers that you can accept.
I’ll take that as your concession. The majority is not harmed by extending equal rights to the minority, plain and simple. So, what are you complaining about?
You just want your way as if it will be ok and everyone will live happily ever after.
Um, yeah, I do want my way, because my way is equal rights for everyone. What is wrong with you that you don’t want everyone to have equal rights?
But, there has never been an atheistic society to gather historical facts of good that comes from what you ask.
I’m not asking for an atheistic society. I’m asking for a secular one. You do know the difference, don’t you?
The only problem is, atheist cannot accept that there are others who have a desire to have an outside force oversee a meeting.
We accept that they have that desire. What we don’t accept is them putting it into practice and railroading the rights of all others. Xians do not have the right to force their beliefs on others.
If God is not there, you should have no problem if you really believe that there is no God. Let them have their way and move on. It is simple. We do it all the time with other religions and atheist. Grow up!
No, you don’t do it all the time. When was the last time Xians had to put up with this in the US? In this country, it’s almost uniformly Xians pushing their beliefs on others and telling those others to sit down and shut up. Why should we let them have their way when it is in clear violation of the secular laws of the land and restricts our rights? Why should we sit down and accept second-class citizen status? The only reason that you are so nonchalant about this is because you happen to be in the majority and are stuffed full of ugly religious privilege.
“That may be what you heard but it is not true. ”
So when you said that to me were you lying or mistaken?
When you read James and Galatians you would think one is of faith and the other is of works. The difference is that works is produced in our faith. I do not expect you to understand that.
… my observations of what the chipmunks do around my yard is them indoctrinating me.
Hence, the icon!
You do not appear to understand the meaning of the word “indoctrinated”.
Absolutely, one dictates the other displays what the parent believes.
Actually, commentmaker, that is the straw man that theists such as you have built up so that you can understand atheism and atheists without having to endanger your own fragile ideology.
I have an adult daughter who was raised non-theistically. I never told her she would be “stupid” to believe in religion, and I never told her when she was younger that other people who did so were stupid. We discussed the religious beliefs insofar as we were able, we discussed my own catholic religious upbringing, and I left the matter of a religion altogether up to her, even going to the extent of allowing her to explore membership in one of the predatory “‘Good’ News Clubs” that insist on bothering elementary and middle school students.
You might want to check up on your strawman as it seems to be on fire.
The wisdom I read in the Proverbs is, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The emphasis is not on “should”, but “he”. It means to learn your child and all of their ways. Then begin to train (indoctrinate) them based upon who they are. It makes for a well rounded child and a very smart parent.
That same proverb is used as a justification for shunning by Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a family member convert away from the church. The family must either cut almost all contact with that individual, such that they aren’t even allowed to speak to them, or the family must leave the church.
You must think all religions are the same. That way you can cherry pick what fits the argument. Not with me!
I don’t think all religions are the same. I’m also not asking you to defend such shunning. I am pointing out that the shunning happens, and it is quite literally tearing families apart, by making the family choose between their family members and their church.
It makes me wonder which type of “love” they fear losing more from their lives, and what sort of fucked up morality allows them to justify cutting off a family member for life, just because they choose to believe in a different god, or no god at all. Or cutting someone out of their lives because they were born gay. (There are stories of how this sort of shunning sometimes leads to suicide among gay teens, made even worse by the family never speaking of that person again.)
Hey, there’s nothing wrong with cutting off a family member who committed mass murder. There is nothing wrong with a family cutting someone off for habitually getting in trouble with the law, either (at the very least, it’s not out of the realm of reason in either of these cases.) But that particular passage is also used to justify “punishing disobedience” in these cases, with the extra threat of shunning against the family if they don’t comply.
Keep in mind, parents have freedom of choice, too. I love my children. If they choose a partner of different belief than mine I will deal with it. Fortunately, I do not have that problem yet. But I know how to deal with it.
So you’ll deal with it. Fair enough; I’m not going to assume or infer the worst from that statement, as it could have a positive context as well.
What I am curious to know is this: If your church gave you the ultimatum to either shun your child forever because they chose to leave your faith, or your whole family must leave the church forever, would you choose to shun your child?
I know what I would choose; but what would you do?
Matthew 18:15-20 tells us how to handle sin in the church. If my son sinned and would not repent, I would have to agree with the church. Privately, I would continue to work with him. He is my son and I would work with him till I died.
I was going to let this one slide, but then I read what you wrote a second time.
You would (publicly) shun your son “forever”, and your church would then be satisfied, but then you would turn that act into a lie by your continuing to communicate with him. I’m not going to remotely suggest you would be wrong for continuing communication with him. If I were in that situation, that’s what I’d do as well, except that I would have left the church first, rather than force myself to live a lie.
Even when I was still devoutly religious, I would never have sided with a church that would try to force that choice upon me or my family. That sort of moralistic blackmail would be a clear cut sign that the people in power lack the moralistic ideals that I would want to learn from and live by.
You may have read this story:
There was a family in Tennessee who were forced out of a church this week, because their daughter came out as gay, and they decided to support her. For the temerity they showed in their decision to support their daughter, they were told to either apologize in front of the church for that act of not just human decency, but family unity, or leave the church forever. It’s not just the JW’s here. That’s part of why I asked the question.
Why is it considered the moral and upright thing to do to allow religion to try and tear apart your family like that, and why aren’t more people standing up for their sons and daughters?
Matthew 18:17 tells us how to deal with someone who does not repent when taken before the church. The church cannot tell the family not to associate with their child. The person who is rebellious to clear instruction in righteous living has to be removed from the church. It does not shun them and does not say to shun them. It simply puts them out of the church to allow God to deal with them. I can continue to talk to and love my child. God will deal with them and I have to accept that when it comes. I never would release my child from my love as God would not do the same. I would have to allow Him to deal with the situation.
“The church cannot tell the family not to associate with their child. ”
So what would you do if your church said “shun your child or we will kick you out of the church?”
Would you: 1) continue to lie to the One True Church (I assume it is since you are a True Christian) which I would imagine might go against one of your commandments 2) actually shun your child 3) get kicked out of the One True Church, which would maybe indicate it was never True to begin with or you yourself were not a True Christian?
Frankly, I would have an argument with the church that I would win.
Because you know better than the church? You would convert then to your way of thinking with your True Christian-ness?
No, more than likely, as it was in the Tennessee church, they will refuse to tolerate your tolerance, and kick you out for the act of thinking for yourself, and for disobeying their rules.
So you indoctrinate a child with the fear of hell so you can indoctrinate them with the silly notion of being “born again”. Never mind the child will be wracked with guilt and fear that they are doing something wrong that might get them damned.
Fundies see child abuse and view it as a good thing. Pretty damn sick.
So, you only see child abuse of about 90% of Americans. The law uses fines, jail, prison and the death penalty to deter crime. Were these the kids that were warned of hell? No way!
The law uses fines, jail, prison and the death penalty to deter crime.
And, yet, we still have crime.
Were these the kids that were warned of hell? No way!
If you’re implying that kids indoctrinated into your cult are not ones getting into trouble, the statistics are not on your side. Xians are over-represented in prison while atheists are under-represented. Additionally, the more religious a part of the country, the more likely to have issues like teen pregnancies, divorces, etc.
Your bigoted attacks on atheists simply don’t match reality.
If you used statistics rather than numbers you would see some equality across the board. Race is a different stat on the other hand.
Your “statistics” are meaningless if you don’t tell us where they come from. I’ve noticed you like to throw out numbers but you never seem to include a source.
There are no numbers in my comment. That means you can look them up yourself. My comment has as much source as the comment before mine.
I wasn’t just referring to this thread, but you are referring to “statistics” showing equality and expecting us to “look it up” but you haven’t so much as given us a place to start. If you include something that seems worth looking into, I might do that out of my own curiosity, but I’m not here to get homework assignments.
That makes just about zero sense, and I fail to see why you are bringing race into this. In fact, if we look at the inequality in the numbers based on race and compare it to Xianity, it makes everything worse for you, unless you’re going to claim that Xians are incarcerated more because of systemic bias against them, which is ridiculous.
But, even if things were equal across the board, it would still destroy your contention that children indoctrinated into your cult are somehow better, or at least less likely to get into trouble.
I do not think I said our children are better because of what we teach them. Someone else brought that up. Lots of assumption here.
It’s not assumptions, but conclusions based on your choice of words. If it’s not what you meant, feel free to clarify and explain what you meant.
Let’s put it this way. Hold a knife to a child’s throat and tell them that if they wet the bed that they’re going to be gutted with the knife. It’s emotional abuse. Instead of a knife it’s the threat of hell and instead of wetting the bed it’s absolute devotion to a deity. Yeah, it’s emotional abuse and you’re a sick person.
> … once they receive God’s grace and are born again they have no fear of hell fire anymore.
Atheists have no such fear. Christians spend their lives in fear of this boogy man.
So, you are telling me that I live in fear. The security I have in Christ is far greater than anything here on earth or the hereafter. Romans 8:35-39
See above – I (think I) cited science for my rebuttal.
Ya, well, the security I have in my life because I believe in Leprechauns and unicorns gets me through the day too, so there’s that. Let me quote from the book of Carlin.
“Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”
How I miss that man.
Pffft… you know quotes only matter if it comes from CM’s dusty old bronze age book of mythology.
“Studies have shown” (since I think I heard a study about this, but I’d have to look it up) that it’s the sort of unsure middle-ground that are most fearful. Those who are confidently religious, or non-religious are not fearful… so it’s not fair to simply say that the religious are religious because they’re feared into doing so.
what? Indoctrinated not to believe? You mean taught to be rational, use critical thinking skills and logic and base their opinions and conclusions on the evidence, or lack there of, provided? I do not think Indoctrinate means what you think it means.
Which is why most atheists don’t have a specifically slanted view of indoctrination: we’re freethinkers, not another religion. We specifically don’t indoctrinate our kids, because we understand that our beliefs don’t, by mere dint of their parents holding them, obligate the kids to do the same.
Everyone here seems to have set parameters when the Christian bell goes off. Your children will pick up your beliefs by listening to your conversations. Most of you talk more about how you don’t believe in God than any other subject. What you say around your children indoctrinates your children.
I almost never talk about how I don’t believe in gods outside of commenting on the internet (mostly here). We do have other things on our minds.
I really hope so. It would be a waste of time to think of someone who believes in something that makes me miserable.
Again, that’s not indoctrination. “Influence” yes. Indoctrination, no. Indoctrination is a specific thing… but since you seem to like “wildcard words” that mean whatever you want them to mean at the time, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
We talk about our atheism a lot… here on an atheist blog. In a forum designed specifically to talk about atheism. You don’t know any of us outside of here; this would be like me accusing you of only ever talking about god because I got a snapshot of you at church.
Outside of this forum, we’re actually just people, you know?
And just talking around your children is one thing, but when you specifically curtail their access to dissenting information, take them to a building once per week where these beliefs are reinforced, not to mention sunday school, that’s when you cross the line to indoctrination.
Not all religious discourse is indoctrination. And not all indoctrination is religious. But when you trap a child into a belief and inculcate a lack of interest in other perspectives, that IS indoctrination.
The kids have a great time. Even if we were wrong, I would want my kids to believe in God. Kids have more fun, and should, in a Christian environment. There is a common interest and everyone is content. If atheist met together and had games and teachings for their kids, they may have fun too.
So you want them to make their own choices, but only if they’re the choices you would agree with? And invoking Pascal’s Wager, to boot? Yeah, that’s indoctrination talking.
So, basically, you don’t care whether what you believe is true.
Also, if atheists can get together and have a fun time (we do, incidentally), why not have the best of both worlds, and have fun while having an accurate world view?
Really? I grew up in a very Christian environment (suburban Texas), but I was raised Jewish. It was miserable, actually.
Christian environments can be fun *for Christians*. They’re exclusive and dehumanizing for everyone else. I’d rather my kids just see people as people and also view the world as accurately as possible.
Christian environment and Jewish is an oxymoron. No wonder you are screwed up. Just let your kids live with no direction and you will be a success in some form. Maybe like Miley Cirus.
1) What do you mean it’s an oxymoron? I grew up in suburban Texas, which is very Christian, but I and my family were Jewish. I was one of three whole Jewish kids at my high school of ~2,000- two after my sophomore year, when the oldest one graduated. I don’t consider myself screwed up at all, actually, nor does anyone who knows me. I just bought my first house, actually (still squee!-worthy) with my husband.
Who said no direction for kids? Please, I already know I’ll have to stop myself from being too helicopter-y. I’ll just ‘direct’ them towards critical thinking and having solid BS-detectors. If they decide at some point there is a god, gods, or supernatural bits, that’s fine. I’ll just teach them to evaluate evidence properly, what counts as evidence, how our brains work and don’t work for all sorts of cognitive biases, and all sorts of fun things about how the world works. What I won’t do is threaten them with Hell or tell them they’re filthy sinners. That’s emotional abuse.
Miley Cyrus is a talented (and lucky!) young woman with an amazing career ahead of her. If one of my children grows up to be like her, I would be okay with that. As far as I know, she hasn’t fallen into drug abuse or anything like that; she’s made the transition from child actress to making pop songs successfully so far as I know.
Maybe he’s pro-religious segregation.
First reaction: God I hope not.
Inappropriate in all the right ways
Have you talked to this guy before? I’m curious why he concluded you’re “screwed up” after one post, whereas I’ve been railing on him for awhile now.
I have a vagina and uterus, thus I can’t be not-screwed-up. Because penis (or lack thereof). Duh!
You lack a penis?! Then why are we responding to you like some sort of human being?! You’re probably so screwed up you think you get to decide how your uterus is used, too!
I know, right? How dare I consider my uterus as part of my body that I control? I should just accept my fate as a walking incubator and be glad for the privilege! We all know that lack-of-penis means I’m too emotionally unstable to make my own decisions anyways.
That must be it: CommentMaker’s brain is just having its period right now. Also known as a hemorrhage.
Maybe he admittedly likes his male privilege along with admittedly liking his Christian privilege.
Do you actually know what the word “oxymoron” means?
He has the “moron” part down pretty good.
We can probably convince him it has something to do with a problem he’s having in Excel.
Absolutely, Christianity and Judaism are on opposite polls. They will never meet. That is an oxymoron.
You do not know what “oxymoron” means.
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or oxymorons) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, “sharp dull”) is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.
Please specify the term that was used that’s an oxymoron.
So you can look it up and still not understand how to use it. That’s even worse.
But look at the examples for the definition of oxymoron – you don’t have something like a “cruel joy” or “sweet agony”.
You DEFINITELY don’t know what an oxymoron is.
It’s strange, given that they share the same Old Testament… or as they like to call it, the Torah.
However, they separate at the New Testament. That is where Jesus came in and Jews do not accept Him as Messiah. Oxymoron.
Still don’t know what an oxymoron is.
That’s not an oxymoron, it’s a difference of belief.
What do polls have to do with this?
They will never meet. That is an oxymoron.
Actually christians and jews have been meeting since the beginning of your religion. It wouldn’t be an oxymoron even if you were right.
Okay, Boobhat. You got us. Excellent Poe-ing you’ve been pulling here.
No, it is not an oxymoron. It’s “person who is being raised Jewish while living in a predominately-Christian neighborhood”.
And, no, Feminerd is not “screwed up” – at least not on the basis of the evidence available to me.
What if the evidence you were told had a flaw in it? If you have not seen it with your eye and have not experienced it in person you cannot know 100% for sure. I could not live that way.
It’s the same thing you used to Feminerd as screwed up. So why are you living that way?
“have not experienced it in person you cannot know 100% for sure. I could not live that way.” Your personal problems with accepting reality don’t impinge on it’s existence. Whether or not 2+2 = 4 means anything to you or if you’ve not done every additional problem conceivable, nevertheless, the math still works the same. You can rely on objective reality not changing every time you blink. Please take that from me as an authority speaking to you on god’s behalf.
Of course there is the physical and metaphysical, the material and immaterial. Some things exist that cannot be explained. You do not know me and I do not know you. That is our problem with facts and figures.
So, your solution, to ensure you never have to reevaluate your beliefs or actions in light of new evidence, is to reject the very idea of evidence and embrace slavery to a monstrous tyrant that exists only in your imagination. You gouge out your own eyes to avoid seeing the facts you don’t want to see.
You believe christian environments turn non-christian kids in Miley Cyrus, and you still believe that’s good for them?
“Just let your kids live with no direction and you will be a success” I think critical thinking skills and rationality is the best training for an uncertain future. Teaching a historical mode of thought / being sounds like a definition of how not to be prepared for what will come.
“Kids have more fun in a Christian environment”. Thus the motif of Chucky Cheese–the epitome of christian decor.
Most of you talk more about how you don’t believe in God than any other subject.
Um, you’re on an atheist blog that deals with atheist issues. Do you expect us to talk about other subjects?
WHY AREN’T YOU TALKING ABOUT FISH TANKS
“Hello sir, do you have some time to talk about cod?”
The decline in Atlantic cod populations is actually responsible for the explosion in the lobster population, and the plummeting in retail lobster prices.
I guess not. But I like to have the discussions with you.
“Most of you talk more about how you don’t believe in God than any other subject.” You can’t know that and in my household, it’s simply not true. Most of the conversations I with my son are 1) about household stuff like dinner and homework 2) about his social life & entertainment activities.
Really, stop making up imaginary atheists. You don’t get it right.
1) Pokemon 2) Soccer 3) Pokemon 4) How I’m a horrible Dad because all his friends have a DX and he doesn’t. 5) How come Amy used to follow him around and sit next to him at lunch and he thought she was so annoying and then she stopped and now she sits next to Kaeden and why doesn’t she talk to him now and what’s so great about Kaeden, anyway.
Regarding Kaeden: not a goddamned thing. Fuck that guy.
This is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. I believe in being open-minded, in finding liberation, in discovering positive coping mechanisms for the realities of this world, and in education. Your argument here is that atheists do the same things as Christians, so they have no right to point fingers at Christians. It’s just simply NOT true, or a good argument even if it was true.
Bottom line, kids do listen to their parents when they are young and have a tendency to believe like them. You do not have to indoctrinate them in what you believe because they hear you everyday. That is a fact you wish not to believe.
Oh, so NOW you’re admitting it’s not indoctrination?
No. It is if you are aware that your conversations and ways affect your children. It is indoctrination.
Since you like dictionaries (dictionary.com):
“the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine,principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:religious indoctrination.
1.to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accep tdoctrines, esp uncritically
2.rare to impart learning to; instruct”
Here’s some synonyms:
“persuasion, brainwashing, instruction, training”
To equate “being influenced by or observe things from” to “indoctrination” is a failure of the English language.
CM looks like ESL to me actually. The alternative is that CM was raised seriously fundy and suffers from their distorted language usage.
I train my children to be confident seekers of knowledge. I do not tell my children what is ok to believe or not believe. This is the fact you do not wish to believe.
There are two thoughts here. I know what I believe is true and will transfer it to my children. I have proven principles and know they work. That is my responsibility to my kids. My nephew has raised his kids like you say you do. No one likes them to be around them because they are very odd. It isn’t because they are non-Christian, it is because they have no respect and do really odd things. They have no social skills and cannot carry on a reasonable conversation with equals or adults. I would never raise my kids that way. I have a proven record with my kids and they are confident in themselves. That is all one can ask.
I COULD provide like, a bazillion cases that, with your logic, would be ample evidence to the damaging effect of a hyper-religious upbringing. I get the feeling that that somehow wouldn’t apply to you and your parenting style, though. I’ll go ahead and raise “odd” children (God forbid those odd ones, huh?).
Stuff I’ve done so far today:
1. Morning routine. 2. Bike to office. 3. Answer work-related email. 4. Do some science. 5. Arrange meetings with visitors over the next couple of weeks. 6. Eat lunch. 7. Read blog posts and comment on them while eating lunch.
Stuff I will do later today:
8. Do more science. 9. Help revise observing proposal. 10. Bike home. 11. Cook and eat dinner with my wife. 12. Probably read a chunk of The Dresden Files.
As others have explained to you repeatedly, you are reaching entirely wrong conclusions because you have not accounted for the biases in your sample.
Maybe science is you problem. You cannot get around what you see and think there is nothing else out there. Sad.
Straw man argument. Please point out where anyone said anything like that.
If you had asked, you would have been told that we’re methodological naturalists – the idea that the LEAST we can determine that is real is a natural world. There may be more “realities”, or whatnot, but this is the one we actually have a capacity to investigate.
I’ll extend to you the same invitation I give to many theists.
If you think there’s another epistemological framework, feel free to define it, and demonstrate that it actually works.
At the moment, science is the only epistemological framework that has been demonstrated to work, at all.
Why would I waste my time with an approach that is indistinguishable from hallucination and delusion?
“Maybe science is your problem.” Maybe not sticking to one idea is your problem. Every time you hit a roadbump in your argument, you jump to a new one. Like Gold Five says, “Stay on target”.
I am talking to about 20 of you who keep twisting the subject matter to your way of thinking. Try it yourself.
I agree it can be hard to deal with a small horde of folks all sniping at you at the same time. We’re having trouble with how you argue, however.
That’s where you’re wrong (well, you’re wrong in many ways, but this is certainly one of them.)
Religion comes up with the answers, then looks for evidence to support those answers. It is by and large reluctant to change its answers in the face of new evidence and understanding. The fact that 46% of Americans reject the theory of evolution is not a sign that the science is flawed. It is a sign that religion has a vice grip over their acceptance of new information, and that it forces theists to reject information that contradicts their scriptures. Only over a great deal of time does religion see gradual shifts in viewpoints and conclusions.
On the other hand, those of us who study both history and the sciences must accept new information, integrate that information into existing theories, and scrap the obsolete theories based on new evidence. We have to deal with the evidence at hand, and come up with new answers based upon the evidence, and that which can be tested…rather than just choose only evidence which may support our theories. When there is sufficient evidence to change our understanding of the facts, so too do our conclusions change. Religion cannot claim to work the same way, because its default position is to resist new information.
“It is a sign that religion has a vice grip over their acceptance of new information, and that it forces theists to reject information that contradicts their scriptures. ”
Heck, just look at a number of ministries/churches, who state it explicitly in their mission statements. Ken Ham comes to mind.
Yep, it’s disturbing to me that 40% of Americans would reject a scientific fact, if that fact contradicted their scriptures. It’s close to the same percentage that deny evolution is even possible. Now, I know all too well that correlation does not imply causation, but if religion fostered the idea of keeping an open mind…the numbers wouldn’t be nearly as close as they are.
Darwin threw his idea out there in the mid 1800′s. That is not enough time to come to the conclusions men have come to. It is a conclusion based upon the desire not to believe in God. That is why it is widely accepted, not because there is any evidence.
Feel free to start here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Darwin figured out one feature – a basic concept for natural selection. The observation of evolution wasn’t even new. He was just the first guy who proposed a non-God solution to the mystery of how it happens.
Since then, tens of thousands of scientists have continued to investigate, and accumulate Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence that all cross-corroborate one another.
We have a growing list of directly observed speciation. Despite the fact that the fossil record is the weakest line of evidence, we have an ever growing collection of transitional forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils).
Evolution is one of the single most well understood, researched and substantiated topics in modern science.
So, will you be the first one to say what race is closest to the monkey? Don’t give me the idea that location causes skin color to change. One race is closest to the monkey and you need to declare it.
If you understood evolution, you’d know this is a bit of a tricky problem. We are not descended from monkeys (or the current apes for that matter). Rather, we share a common ancestor. I haven’t seen anyone draw a tree for how far any human ‘race’ diverges from the shared ancestor. Worse, ‘race’ isn’t really a biological term, we’re all the same species.
One race is closest to the monkey and you need to declare it.
Is that your christian belief?
“So, will you be the first one to say what race is closest to the monkey?”
Which monkey? Please specify one.
We’re all “closest” because, within the surviving “human” lineage, we share a common ancestor that then goes back to a common ancestry with other extinct “human like” hominids, who then share a common ancestry with Chimpanzees.
“Don’t give me the idea that location causes skin color to change.”
Why not? That’s the adaption in sunny areas. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to simply pre-dismiss reality.
This is a nice red herring, by the way. Can’t win on the facts? Try to derail the conversation by bringing up racism, as though Darwin wasn’t interested in using the factual reality of evolution to demonstrate WHY the Africans were really one of us, and therefore, deserving of better treatment.
It doesn’t matter how “bad” a scientific theory’s implications appear to be – that doesn’t change it’s reality.
And FYI, I say “one of us” in the context of the Eurocentric world view at the time.
The one closest to the human race and the human closest to the ape race. That should be easy.
… that’s all you had to say on that?
As I explained in my post above, all human are equally related to chimps (and Bonobos). No human individual, group, or “race” is more closely related to chimps than any other human. Are you really that ignorant, or just trying really hard to inject racism into evolution?
Chimps and Bonobos are most closely related to each other, but are the two primate species most closely related to humans.
Again, are you or your sister more closely related to your grandmother (or cousin, etc.)?
On a side note (for the non-creationists), I would posit that neanderthals and Denisovans would constitute what are biologically defined as different races from the line of modern sapiens (what would have at the time been Cro-Magnons or EEMHs)
“Which monkey? Please specify one.” Brass monkey. That funky monkey
You have just demonstrated a horrible lack of understanding of how evolution works.
First, it is widely held among biologists that what we socially refer to as “races” among humans do not meet the biological definition of race.
Second, all humans are related to other species by calculation of the most recent common ancestor of both species. The most recent common ancestor of both humans and chimps is not “more” related to one human than any other. No “race” of humans could be more or less related to other primate species than any other “race.” It’s like asking the question, “Are you or your sister more closely related to your grandmother?”
Third, with few exceptions for certain paraphyletic groups, biologists group species and subdivide by recent common ancestors. Thus, all Humans are apes, it is merely a human conceit that we wouldn’t be. All apes are old world monkeys. All old world monkeys are primates. You, Commentmaker, are a monkey, no more nor less than I am, regardless of any socially constructed “race.”
As the Great Ra would say, it’s like asking for evidence that a parrot evolved from a bird.
Or Ken Ham saying that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.
Holly shit. Race is a social construct not a biological one. I’m genuinely embarrassed for you.
You have ADHLAS – Attention Deficit, Hey Look a Squirrel.
That may be true, but I’m still completely fixated on the train wreck that is your posts.
Don’t give me the idea that location causes skin color to change.
Yes! Groups of humans who were exposed to more UV light, longer photo-periods, and who were, in short, closer to the equator, eventually evolved darker and darker skin! Melanin production started in utero, and ramped up at greater rates. At the same time, groups of humans that lived far from the equator, had shorter photo-periods, and were exposed to less UV light, had melanin production curtailed (and could consequently produce more vitamin D).
It’s a much better and more credible explanation than saying dark people are descended from some guy who was cursed because he saw his Dad passed out drunk and naked.
That is unscientific, ethnocentric, and entirely racist. You are an embarrassment to the human race.
Unfortunately, evolution will never be proven. Nothing links together so you have to bridge it with millions and millions of years and an endless list of ifs. That is not enough fact for anything.
*HONK* So very very wrong.
We’ve “linked” lots of species. We’ve observed speciation. Whenever we do, and demonstrate it to creationists, we get the “but that’s microevolution*! It’s not ‘Darwinian evolution’! That would be a dog giving birth to a cat!” nonsense. Thus demonstrating that they have as little understanding of how evolution works as you do.
*microevolution in this context is not defined as biologists define it, but as meaning “acceptable to creationists”
It’s funny how in order to justifiably believe in God, all we need to do is believe, and *poof*… but when it comes to demonstrating something in reality, all of a sudden, the evidentiary requirements fly through the roof.
I’ve said that you will never have the proof you seek.
Not when the god concept has been specifically engineered to be undemosntrable.
The standards of evidence I used are the ones that are responsible for discovering every single aspect of how your computer works. I demand actual real evidence, not abysmally idiotic things like “but Christians have TRUE love and peace”.
I’m sorry that you decided to believe something that is unsupported by any kind of actual evidence.
Evolution is as close to proven as you’ll ever get for anything. Besides, who is talking about proof? We’re talking about evidentiary support, which we have mountains of for evolution.
Have you decided yet if you believe that chihuahuas and wolves have identical DNA, or if you believe that dogs don’t exist? It’s one or the other.
Still more fact than any god.
“That is why it is widely accepted, not because there is any evidence.”
Could you please define this word “evidence” that you are using? Everything I have seen from you would seem to indicate you are perhaps thinking of a different word.
Darwin threw his idea out there in the mid 1800′s.
This is a dismissive way of putting it that only demonstrates your ignorance of Darwin and his theory.
That is not enough time to come to the conclusions men have come to.
According to who? You are ignorant of the science and the millions of data points involved. You’re ignorant of even the Modern Synthesis and how Natural Selection occurs. You’re just making proclamations about a theory whose processes are far better understood than, say, GRAVITY.
It is a conclusion based upon the desire not to believe in God.
You’re claiming to be psychic. Sorcerers and false prophets will not inherit the Kingdom of God. See you in Hell, I guess.
That is why it is widely accepted, not because there is any evidence.
If you had ever actually read up on the theory, you might understood how rampantly stupid this sounds. You know those vaccinations that have kept you from dying a miserable death? I mean you, PERSONALLY? If Evolutionary Theory was false, they wouldn’t work. And that’s such a small chunk of the overwhelming evidence that it wouldn’t even count as the tip of the iceberg.
Seriously, here, pay attention to this: When you claim that Evolutionary Theory isn’t supported, you are literally claiming either that chihuahuas and wolves have the exact same DNA, or that dogs don’t exist. This is not hyperbole. That’s how stupid you sound.
*cough* “… to whom?” *cough*
I’ll go down vote myself, now.
Strunk & White say that either is acceptable; consistency is of greater importance. RAWR
*expects someone to look that up now and tell him that he misremembers the rule*
That’s just special coming from you.
When you are teaching a subject, such as the possible existence of gods, and you only present material from one side of the argument? THAT’S INDOCTRINATION.
How many congregations present information from other sects? Other religions? The non-religious? Atheists or anti-theists? How many congregations would take opposing information seriously and present it respectfully and factually accurate, and not merely as straw-men to be attacked and beaten to prove a point?
Your comments only show that you clearly are indoctrinated, and not attending a congregations that has any interest in teaching otherwise.
“The difference between us is that once they receive God’s grace and are born again they have no fear of hell fire anymore.”
But how are they to know if they have received the right version of god’s grace? What if they get it from the wrong source and are not True Christians? Could you (being a self proclaimed True Christian) please educate us so we can tell the difference?
It is kind of like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. This is part of what Dryfus when through that I think Christians go through.
I hate disqus
@ close encounters reference. Sculpting geography with your food or while destroying your living accommodations isn’t a sign of a healthy mind. At least in the movie, however, the aliens actually exist and actually show up. Here we are 2013 years down the road and no god/jesus making personal appearances or hitting the talk show circuit while doing miracles and preaching the gospel.
I personally think the rapture happened back in 827 BC at 3:43 PM GMT 30′ north of Equatorial Guinea. There was one man (it’s always a man) sitting at the bar but only drinking fizzy water. He alone lived (or would live) a sin-less life according to the one diety who does exist. He was raptured and the rest of us since then have been living in hell.
May he didn’t show up because there aren’t enough mashed potatoes.
By your logic, then, these poor brainwashed kids would not ever leave their parent’s religion and would be forced to live a lifestyle that they aren’t in tune with for their entire lives. The fault I find with that assumption is that every (Christian-based) religion in the country is seeing that the number of 20-somethings in their congregations is dropping. If they were taught “not to know better” and as a result can’t make up their minds in favor of anything contrary to what they have been taught once they have reached an age of reason, then why are they changing their minds once they reach an age of reason?
This argument can only work if one assumes that the indoctrination always “takes”.. as opposed to say, 90% effectiveness. Some people are more introspective and analytical than others. Sometimes, it’s simply a question of having been introduced to the right information to spawn that introspection.
The fact that some people do manage to escape doesn’t nullify the fact that the religious indoctrination process DOES work on a vast majority of people.
The question was how you push faith on someone, which was what I answered in that post.
Not how they break free from that indoctrination (although I would have included that in my answer, had it been asked.) You’re correct that millenials are leaving in droves, and quite frankly, I’m happy about that.
While it’s true that many of these kids ARE taught that these “truths” are immutable, and that they are being disobedient (and therefore sinful) by even questioning it… It is ALSO true that the propaganda and the contradictions don’t hold as much sway over more recent generations of youth as they once did. Because we live in an age where information is much more easily attained, the success rate for conversion is even lower with those that are already adults.
Further, the youth within are starting to see the hypocrisy, and outside influences (including the internet) are opening their minds to ideas their that parents can’t control. Add in the steadily increasing acceptance of gays in society, i.e. it’s more likely they already know someone who is GLBT, a peer or even a family member, who might just break the “gays are evil” perception that conservative religion likes to push…
And finally, throw in the tendency for conservative churches to keep pushing further to the right on social issues, which is driving away not just millenials, but moderate adults – see the story about the Tennessee church that kicked out the family of a gay woman as a recent example.
The mental equivalent of foot binding. I keep wondering if this is why most people can’t follow a logical argument which contradicts any strongly held belief.
I think you’re confused about what you’re confused about, CM. Oh look–it’s Jesus again!
The first idea which comes to mind is forcing it into publicly funded areas like schools (where the audience is essentially held captive).
Another is co-opting government to give the impression of an official faith and all others will be ignored.
Conversion by force worked from antiquity until the modern era. (The last forced conversion to Catholicism was in 1944!)
I can go on.
What I know about faith is far from what you are saying. No one can force faith. No one. No how. No way.
Yeah, you are addressing what I was talking about. /s
What anyone knows about faith is nothing. Faith is the absence of knowing anything.
Of course it hardly stops people who think they can inculcate faith to others through coercion and obnoxious behavior.
Of course playing semantical games is a great way to show people you have a point of view which should be respected and understood. /s
Come back to me when you are willing to have a serious discussion.
Have faith in whatever you want to believe in.
Or, even better, believe what is demonstrably true, and ditch faith altogether as unhealthy.
So you are not serious. Good to know.
When Paul was in Corinth he had discussions much like we are having here. When there was no more use of the argument the only thing to do was:
“But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” Acts 18:2
I think I was pretty nice in what I said, but I am not leaving.
Okay, I think the conversation is over. He’s resorting to quoting Star Trek.. uhhh.. I mean Bible quotes now.
I quote Star Trek all the time, but in just one case, I will purposely misquote it:
“What does God need with worship?”
I didn’t mean to blaspheme Star trek. I was making more an obscure reference to the Star Trek Rule.
I didn’t take it as such. No worries.
Five hundred quatloos on the newcomer!
I actually heard the scottish brain in my head when I read that.
Assuming Paul was in Corinth at all. Since your source is a book written and ultimately compiled several centuries after his purported death with specific political aims in mind (See Council of Nicea), dramatic license is likely.
What is in the scripture is of no relevance to the issue of what people do in furtherance of their religious belief. Religion is far more than scripture. Of course nobody who acts obnoxiously in furtherance of their faith is a “true christian”. You have taken upon yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of such status, as opposed to how people have identified themselves and their beliefs through the ages.
I guess one has to go back as far as the founders of Christianity to avoid discussion of what people have been doing in Christ’s name to perpetuate the religious belief.
Clarifying what I believe about scripture does not particularly mean I have assumed a status superior or equal to anyone. That only states where I am coming from. If you have bundled all beliefs in the same bag your argument will not be received well.
The God of the Bible had a chosen people called Jews. They were the only ones given the law and the only ones that would have opportunity to go to heaven. That was until Jesus came and the Jews rejected Him. It was Acts 18:2 that opened the door of opportunity and election for me, a Gentile.
So that is what you are doing? Riiiigght
Except nobody was asking about your belief here. We are talking about how people act in furtherance of it. You feel the need to make fallacious arguments and to avoid direct issues in favor of changing the subject.
While we are on the topic of what people will do in furtherance of Christianity and methods used to force faith on others, take a gander at this link. http://digitalassets.ushmm.org/photoarchives/detail.aspx?id=1075125&search=CHURCHES%2FCHAPELS&index=2
More than 1200 Serbs from Glina were forced to convert. They were later slaughtered in the same church where they were converted.During the summer of 1941 the government of the new Independent State of Croatia decreed that the Serbian Orthodox religion would cease to exist within its borders. In June, the Ustasa created an Office of Religious Affairs under the leadership of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac, to handle the conversion of Serbs to Catholicism.Across Croatia priests were instructed to inform the Serbian population that they must choose between conversion and death. Children, especially orphans, were targeted for conversion.By May 1944 Stepinac could boast of the conversion of 244,000 Orthodox Serbs in a letter to the Vatican. The Ustasa kept good records of the conversions.Each Catholic diocese published weekly reports of new conversions. Dozens of these forced conversions were filmed for Croatian newsreels.
More than 1200 Serbs from Glina were forced to convert. They were later slaughtered in the same church where they were converted.
During the summer of 1941 the government of the new Independent State of Croatia decreed that the Serbian Orthodox religion would cease to exist within its borders. In June, the Ustasa created an Office of Religious Affairs under the leadership of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac, to handle the conversion of Serbs to Catholicism.
Across Croatia priests were instructed to inform the Serbian population that they must choose between conversion and death. Children, especially orphans, were targeted for conversion.
By May 1944 Stepinac could boast of the conversion of 244,000 Orthodox Serbs in a letter to the Vatican. The Ustasa kept good records of the conversions.Each Catholic diocese published weekly reports of new conversions. Dozens of these forced conversions were filmed for Croatian newsreels.
You have tried to argue something that I am not affiliated with and trying to pin in on me because I believe in God. You are talking Catholic and I am Protestant. Opposite.
Two quotes from you:
“BTW, my Christianity has nothing to do with Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses or any other denominational religion.”
“I am Protestant”
Are you Protestant or nondenominational?
I am Protestant and close to nondenominational. I am Baptist in belief, but think there are flaws in the system.
See, I would have guessed you were another troll we’ve seen around here with nearly the exact same tone and views, but who I think identified as Catholic. Can you begin to understand why all you christian sound more or less the same to us?
Yes. Same as atheist to Christians .
Your sentences are becoming even less comprehensible.
So Catholics are not “true christians”? I am sure that one will go over well.
Well, it hasn’t. They’ve been killing each other in the U.K. for years over it… you know, atheist societies.
From what I understand, they work their way to heaven. It is not of works.
A non-answer. I will just take that as a no, they aren’t true Christians according to you.
I now have faith that you will usually type something nonsensical. You forced that onto me.
You go on about your faith when the audience is captive. High School graduation for example. The mall preachers at every college campus are also pushing faith on anyone walking by them. On Facebook, you have hyper religious folks posting “jesus loves my puppy” pictures and other endless similar faith postings – sometimes its not just in the feed but they’ll forward you personally the latest uplifting set of lies etc. I could fill 42 column inches with additional examples. The single day when I don’t have some religion foisted on me will be a happy day.
Interesting. You do not believe in God as much as I do believe in God. You would think I would be as miserable as you when I run into an atheist. You guys have been in the news and you are out there quite a bit now, but it simply doesn’t bother me. I don’t get it. We have to live together and we live in a country that allows us to speak our mind.
Is your thinking so sloppy that you think you’re on the same point or is your writing based on stream of consciousness so that you can’t tell your not keeping to the same point?
The question was on whether or not christians “push faith”. I provided many examples where they “push faith”. QED. My point isn’t based on mere exposure to the existence of a belief but rather that we’re constantly bombarded via all segments of life in the us that we must believe (or else).
Textbook case of religious privilege.
I tried to use your own reasoning and logic. We just don’t see atheist very often and should be as offended by your belief as you are ours. We’re not.
We aren’t offended by your beliefs (although we find the idea that people deserve eternal torture to be offensive) so much as we are offended by you and others pushing your beliefs on us and attempting to do so through the government/law. We are treated as a despised minority, you are not, so the power distribution is skewed towards you. Of course you don’t get upset about being in power, having a position of privilege. For you to look at us and chastise us for being upset at you having undeserved privilege over us is just plain vile.
Additionally, it’s simply not true that Xians are not offended by atheists/atheism. Whenever atheists put up a billboard, look at the outcry it will inevitably receive. Even putting up innocuous messages like, “Don’t believe in god, you are not alone,” raises the hackles of many Xians to the point that they protest, spew bigotry, and sometimes threaten or commit violence.
This (and other reasons actually) show quite clearly that you are full of religious privilege and quite happy about it. You’re atheophobic and quite happy about that as well.
I agree, I like religious privilege. If I didn’t, sad to say, it would be like Libya. I do not trust atheist in control of things because of their bias. Christians allow atheist to live their lives the way they want to and I just cannot think atheist would do the same. Not based upon this blog or others.
Ohhhhhhhh and the bigotry blasts right through.
Funny, because the one thing Libyan government didn’t allow was non-religion. What it did was make the three primary religions of the region each occupy a part of the government. And for many years it was a bastion of how unlike beliefs could be brought together to work together through secular means. Then one group figured they deserved religious privilege, and now we have the war torn Libya of today. Funny that your example proves you wrong on every test. Maybe you want to reroll your example to something that doesn’t actively work against your point.
Christians allow atheist to live their lives the way they want to…
Oh, like the Russian Orthodox church, in bed with the Duma, is letting atheists (and gays) in Russia live their lives they way they want to? And the way Christians in Uganda are being so nice and sweet and kind to atheists and gays there?
I would not compare myself with gays. The Russian Orthodox Church is not my church of choice. Stick with my beliefs.
So basically, anyone who doesn’t share your exact beliefs is suspect?
Because, clearly, the fact these people believe in God (aka not atheists) wasn’t the important factor.
Atheist have proven that they believe the same thing.
Nope. Just that they lack patience with people who make up stuff about others in discussions, are evasive, don’t answer questions directly, and divert discussions down semantic rabbit holes and trolling.
Though in all fairness the atheists here are showing a remarkable level of patience in dealing with you. More than many deserve.
That may be because I am rational and patient. I am not here to convert or condemn anyone and hope my conversations have dictated that. Only the obscene deserve a reprimanded response.
That may be because I am rational and patient.
Contradiction alert! You’ve previously claimed that you are not rational and eschew it in favor of your beliefs.
So your statement, “Christians allow atheist to live their lives the way they want to…” was really only referring to your own special brand of christianity.
Them fur’n “christians” probably aren’t “True Christians”(TM), anyway.
I do not trust atheist in control of things because of their bias.”
And what bias would that be?
“Christians allow atheist to live their lives the way they want to and I just cannot think atheist would do the same.”
So all those laws trying to remove science from schools, dictating what can and can’t be done on sundays, not allowing freedom of marriage, etc are allowing people to live their lives the way they want to?
It’s funny, because we’re the ones who are usually fighting for secularism and multiculturalism – so that the society is open and free for everyone… where the Christian theocrats are currently engaged in a 24/7/365 battle to render anyone in America who isn’t Christian to be second-class citizens.
Shit. Read this damn blog’s posts for like 5 minutes.
“Christians allow atheist to live their lives the way they want to”
No they do not. When I go to court, I don’t want to see anyone’s religious edits on the walls or on the steps as you go in. It makes it look like you’d better start xtianing up so that you have an equal shot at justice in front of the judge.
You do not have to identify yourself as an atheist. The law will determine if you are guilty or not based upon your confession or silence. You need to get over the God syndrome you have and live in peace.
The population of Libya is 97% Muslim, 2% Christian, and less than 1% irreligious (at least by public identification). And, although the current situation is in flux, Islam was the official state religion for a long time.
You appear to not understand what religious privilege means. It does not just include Christian privilege, which is big in the US and Russia (among other places); but also Muslim privilege, which is big in Libya (among other places); Buddhist privilege, which is big in Thailand (among other places); and any situation where one religion is privileged over others or religion is priliveged over irreligion. And privilege of any religion or of irreligion by a government can be and often has been equally bad, as others have explained to you.
And you are confusing atheism in general with Marxist-Leninist atheism in particular, which very few here would advocate. Don’t make that mistake. The goal is to have a secular and non-authoritarian government, not to replace one authoritarian social structure with another.
Oh! That’s what his point was? It seemed kind of off the wall.
It’s funny, because we do more to protect his rights as a minority religious denomination than he does.
Then what morals will you use when everyone is equal? Christian?
Check out Sam Harris on Morals (youtube!)
or you can check out Matt Dillahunty.
Or even google secular humanist & morality and see a ton of links on how it works. Turns out it’s a lot better than anything we’re hearing out of the religious.
“Then what morals will you use when everyone is equal? Christian?”
I somewhat bothered that this question implies that morality requires inequality. Life is rarely equal and I’d hate morality to thus be impossible.
Actually, “Christian morals” and all other moral systems that anyone has ever come up with are nothing other than human morals – although they may wrongly claim not to be.
So instead say humanist morals.
And you could have figured that out quite immediately on Google. Go do your homework.
It’s not like we keep secular humanist morality hidden or that it changes if you’re chosen or ‘saved’.
Goodness No! We’d want morals that were kind and fair and just.
You did not answer but created confusion. Please answer the questions.
I agree, I like religious privilege.
You like having an unearned place in society that is above all those who don’t believe as you do? Really? You’re going to publicly admit that? You’re publicly admitting that you don’t want a free and egalitarian society, but a theocracy.
I do not trust atheist in control of things because of their bias. Christians allow atheist to live their lives the way they want to and I just cannot think atheist would do the same. Not based upon this blog or others.
That’s interesting, because this blog consistently pushes for equality for all through secularism. It also consistently points out instances where Xians try to enforce Xianity on the population. IOW, this blog continually gives real-world examples where Xians are trying their hardest not to allow atheists to live their lives the way they want to, while that’s exactly what atheists are trying to do.
Traditionally, people like you use violence or the threat of violence. Or just get really whiny when you are ignored.
I love the ‘Gravity versus Santa’ – after all they are both only ‘theories’ p.s. ever tried jumping off a building?
As long as you land on Santa, it works out ok.
Not for Santa =(
He has an eternal persistence phenotype, he’ll be fine :).
Some people have weird fetishes. Comfort’s fetishes are telling lies and looking like an idiot.
I can’t help but wonder if Ray Comfort is actually a troll…
Nope, just a charlatan and opportunist. He makes a very comfortable living out of lying to people why want to be lied to.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an accurate description of Ray Comfort’s character before. Jaclyn Glenn is dead right.
Pity that the comments here got overtaken by CommentMaker’s general stupidity though.
Follow Patheos on