We rail against it just as we would any other ill-concieved scare tactic to sway the guillible. Fear of divine retribution was necessary in the Dark Ages; now it is not. Why are we punished for eternity for what is done in one lifetime?
You already know it is Neutral. It is a 'spiritual warfare', and all spiritual wars have their foundation in 'religious' belief(s).
Yes... That's a lie. Your meaning is unclear. Try re-stating it. And what is sin? Why should "grace" be requisite for avoiding sin? Why is it the opinion of many Christians, that not all people have grace? By your rules, callow types with deathbed conversions can be spared the agonies of perdition, but the likes of Ghandi and Spinoza - men who denied the divinity of Christ - cannot. We don't have to claim infallibility. It's just possible that there is a hell, like you say. If true, this world is a more awful place than we yet imagined. If by "doctrine" you mean nonaxiomatic statements that are taken - on insufficient evidence - to be unerringly true, then no, we have no doctrine. That's disingenuous. Monotheism requires a place of punishment, in order to motivate conformity to moral norms. We don't worry about hell, any more than we really worry about being under a military dictatorship that employes torture. But then, curious, we have all these people in the culture saying, "yeah, a military dictatorship's the way to go, especially for the dungeons we can use against our political enemies...!" And guess what, that's something that's gonna get me and other like-minded people upset, even if it is a hypothetical. Imagine that.
Are you saying that the poor are not relevant? The doctrines of Islam and Christianity say otherwise. Additionally, the places of the most growth are from the perifery - China, India? Realy unimpotant? Those places where atheism is growing or hold sway are slipping - North Korea, Europe, etc. God loves humanity - all of us. These aorts of views are made by academics, but the basis of the Christian religion is not the Greek comological order, but the Jewish one. The cosmological order of the Roman Empire and its world view stands in stark contrast to that of Christianity or Juddaism. The cruel, jealous, petty Gods of Rome stand in sharp contrast to those a God that preached Love and Forgiveness, knowledge as useless devoid of the wisdom to use it properly. You are welcome to sepculate on the basis, but the origins are irrelevant to the source itself. The worlds WAS NOT when Christianity first emerged. It was the doctrine that shaped that world, not the other way around. People compared, and thought, "this is better," and adopted it. I believe in Evolution. Fully support it. Most Christians do. What I disagree with is that we are slaves to our genetioc code (ala Dawkins), and that morality is the creation of evolution vs. human reasoning. Human morality and evolutionary morality are strakly different. Jesus was the Son of God. You make referrence to teh Trinity, which, honestly, is not that hard to understand. People, both practicers and critics tend to overthink it trying to divine the nature of God. You do so by missing the main point. Nothing Jesus did comes without guidance from God. His miracles all require prayer. His wisdom is derived from God. His compassion, his sacrifice, his lessons, all come from God. Focusing on minutia rather than the meat of a religion is not going to defeat it. Christianity is growing, not shrinking. And, quite frankly, atheism offers nothing but criticism - it is not solutive in nature. And people at some point, are still going to have to deal with the intangible aspects of life. And atheist preaching about science offers no helpful insight into question like, "What is the purpose of my life." What is atheism without Christianity to criticize? Yep, we can all choose to be evil. Why would we?
So you are a perfect man are you? How do you intend to make right the wrong you do? How do you allow wisdom to make its way into your life? To deal with those aspects of being young and inexperienced were you inadvertantly do wrong? Those time you allow frustration to effect you, or to become affected by you? There is no whim to grace. It was given VERY deliberately and through tremendous sacrifice. It was given to everyone. Feel free to deny it. But call that evil? That is nothing more than emotional hyperbole. Somethings are true. Adultery is ALWAYS sin - even if context should be taken into account for consequence. Murder is ALWAYS sin, etc. There are time honored processed that allow us to come reasonably close to truth. It is the abscence of those processes that should alarm. Why should science care whether the data it generates would be percieved as good or bad? "How much smoke comes out of that smoke stack?" "Well, obviously you, the tester, need to make sure that it falls within compliance or it could be quite bad." What you are talking about is the deliberate introduction of bias into sceince - and that is not science - it is rationalization. As does ANY other profession. Things like peer review and publication to allow OTHER scholars to interpret and recreate your work. The same process applies to religion, where various religious scholars write out their views, and others verify their data. These objective processes are NOT unque to sceince. When they are tossed aside, as they are for Dawkins, Hitchens, Wells, etc. we are left with something that is not only not science, or even professional, but basically propoganda. As opposed to atheism's? How many atheists were involved in the resolution of the 30 years war? The wars of religion were effectively ended when the Catholic and Protestant Powers ended the 30 years war. That did not stop war did it? Ideology continues to infect militarily empowered nations, and that includes nation states that have adopted atheism - and abandoned secularism - which entails respect for diversity and not enforced irreligious conformity. The wars of the past several hundreds years belie this stance's weakness. Have they? So the space race was devoid of nationalistic impetus was it? So you are telling me that atheists simply do not deal with life's uncertainties and anxieties? What does sceince tell you about all the things in the universe that you cannopt control but that nevertheless effect you? You are also wrong about technology. Our food supply line, as more and more poeple are dependant on it for survival, if disrupted would result in massive loss of life and caranage on a massive scale. Something tells me that Afghans already living without technology will fare substantially better than Americans who are totally depenadnt on Supermarkets. Technology creates its own dependancies. And what sets these standards? You really think, given the last centuries history, that atheism is free from excess? Lawis the result of the debate - it is not the debate itself. And where does most philosphy find its origins? so the fact that every discovery point out just how little we know, even as oru knowledge increases by orders of magnitude ... it is apparently better to believe we have it all figured out? There is no mystery in the universe to atheists? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). So long as there is humanity with human needs there will be religion. It is growing, not shrinking.
No, nothing religious about anti-theism. It is existentially motivated, logically articulated, resistance to nihilism.
Really? You know this better than Christians? Please referrence what Jesus says about Hell. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Atheists on this forum routinely, adamently, and to the point of reporting me for being bigoted for claiming what you are now claiming is a lie, ensure me that atheism is JUST the belief in no God - nothing more. By all means, I have referrenced dozens of volumes on athestic thought, what is the doctrine of atheism regarding morality? The fear of imaginary Hell is so cohersive and overwhelming that it forecs you to believe in God does it? And yet here you sit an atheist? Cause and effect are clearly not connected here are they? Read the Bible. See if you can find a Sin in the Bible that you think should not be a sin. How else do you deal with humanities imperfections? You as us to solve the problem, we do, and you tell us we are stupid anyway. Where is YOUR solution? Yep, God claims the souls of men at any point when they realize the truth. Grace knows no limits, grace knows no bounds, God does not love you any less than you would a son or daughter who rejected you (pain you though it might be) but shows up on your death bed and tells you that they love you. That is a good thing. Callow? That is anything but. What does infallibility have to do with hell? You believe there is nothing after death correct? So, what happens to people you choose to live a life of debauchery and evil? Nothing? Oh, there is no evidence that Jesus was real? That there is power in love and forgiveness? That wisdom is an important thing? And, weighing in at over a thousand pages .... that is one hell of an axiom. Maybe you should read it. So consequence is a bad thing? I don;t see you all that worried about North Korea, China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. And with Christianity holding sway over the vast majority of the world's democratic nations, fully secularized nations in most cases BTW, your worries seem greatly out of place with the reality of the world and military dictatorships.
Given that there is no evidence upon which to base a belief in God, it seems basically to be nihilism. An Anti-religious, religious Crusade?
While I agree of your opinion about the concept of Christianity, it seems like you're saying Christians today are just trying to scare tactic. I believe if that's what you intend - then you're being unfair. I believe most Christians believe the Bible is the legitimate word of God.
No... I'm saying, with Marx, that dogmatism flourishes where people are ignorant and poor. The future of the world is not set by what goes on in such places. Christianity is a hybrid of Jewish monotheism and Messianism, the pagan 1st century CE tradition of divine men, the Mystery religions that thrived around the turn of the age, and Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy was essential for building up a complex theology necessary to persuade educated Romans that the cult wasn't pure foolishness. Without the Greek component, there is no more reason to expect Christianity would have outcompeted the cults of Mithra or Isis. The gods of the Mystery religions (of which Christianity can itself be said to be an instance) served as similar function for their devotees. ?? This sentence doesn't even make sense. If you do not believe that cosmoogical and moral considerations are bound up together - nigh inextricably - in religious beliefs the world over, you are really clueless about this subject. Maybe you should read what dem academics actually say. That's true as far as it goes. Christianity genuinely outcompeted its contemporaries. But Christianity is a syndrome of ideas which can be sourced, and explained. For people who don't think about it, sure. The nature of God is precisely the point. Blah, blah, blah. Again confusing the source with worthiness on the merits. I don't care where you claim Jesus got his wisdom. I care whether what he says really makes sense. If it does, he could have got it from Oscar the Grouch, for all I care. If it doesn't, why the hell should I care about the source? Atheism, or anti-theism, is the original thesis of human liberty. No gods, no masters. Once that is done, we can then go about rooting out arbitary authority wherever we find it. I would answer, life is not for any one specific thing. We are not compelled to do anything. I didn't say we would all be choosing evil. I said that we could choose not to obey God. What justifies you in equating the two?
A rose by any other name .... An ideological Crusade, of which atheism certainly qualifies based on its faith requirement, is very much a religious Crusade. One is best cautioned when pursuing something with great zealotry.
Well, god set the standard, which is to be perfect. He set the standard, a standard in which he knew we wouldn't meet, only to say, "It's ok, just as long as you worship me?" Why did he set the standard so high? My wife is not perfect by any stretch. She makes mistakes, I understand this. It would be quite arrogant for me to say, "Since you aren't perfect, even though I know you weren't perfect when I married you, the only way I'll forgive you and not divorce you is if you worship me". Of course I didn't say that; that's ridiculous. People aren't perfect, and we don't expect them to be. We set the standards based on the averages. Most people are so good, and the people that go above that we consider good enough. What makes this story even worse is that God made us. Why did he make us imperfect, just so he can torture us? I think that's what this guy is saying. He's not mad that God grants it, he's mad at the way God set the whole situation up. Religion caused the Wars, and then takes credit for resolving them? Huh; I must have mis-interpreted the last 80 years of Middle-Eastern history. I didn't know if there was an Atheist Nation. They just prove that Wars do happen for other reasons sometimes. Your logic is: There were lots of wars back in the day when theocracies ruled; now, secular governments have taken over, and there are still wars. Therefore, atheism causes just as many wars as religion. What you have yet to establish, is how atheism caused any of the wars in the last 100 years. We know, for instance, that there were wars caused directly by religion; have you established a war that was caused directly by atheism? I don't think so. This is obviously nonsense when you consider the fact that a secular government isn't necessarily even controlled by atheist rulers. I don't know many countries that are controlled by atheists that are running around starting fights. The ones starting fights are the supposedly secular government's with Presidents and Congressmen that are virtually all religious and a constituency that is virtually all religious.
Oh, they may. I just think that they haven't thought it through. Also, they're trying to differentiate themselves from you, and your facile claims that they have a "doctrine," and a "religion," which they obviously do not. I have been reading the Bible. Okay, how about the one where Jesus equates looking at someone lustfully, with actual sex? I think it's neurotic to think that humans should live perfect lives. At times we fail to do what we should, ahhh the world is out of joint!!! Sometimes, wrong actions - and the consequences that follow - are the only way to learn what is right. That doesn't mean that we should ever do wrong. It's one of the paradoxes of life, I suppose. Something that Christians never seem to appreciate. This here is what us clear-eyed types refer to as "happy talk." And it's certainly unorthodox, too, for millions of Christians. Their posthumous reputation suffers, of course. But to them? Nothing happens. They're dead. What, that's not fair? Well, welcome to grown-up life. The apparent fact that justice is only possible in this life, should motivate us that much more to see that it is achieved here.
Communists were not uneducated were they? Nevertheless, they rather dogmatically claimed some of humanities most brutal actions as their own. Education is certainally a key component to avoiding dogmatic dictates.... now, please acknowledge that the vast majority of your fellow citizens who disagree are fully educated people. No, it is what is the Bible and is centered around Jesus. Is this really that hard? Did they? Did the roman Gods preach respect, dignaty, compassion, forgiveness, righteoueness, equality? Did they now? Its called disgreement. Just like I disagree with sociological views that perscribe behavior based on circumstance and eliminate humanities choice - even in dire conditions. I disagree emphatically that the cosmological wordl view has remained unchanged with various religions merely slipping in upon the same values. That is patently false. Even more so when you consider how much the world has changed from Rome until now. But, according to you it has not? Well, let me know when you see legions cleansing out Alabamans for not supporting Obama - by cruxifying them. Yep, God. So we are back to calling others stupid? What does the Bible, the Koran say about the nature of God? And you have been able to discern any more have you? About something you don;t even believe in? And you have found convincing scientfic proof that there is no God have you? Ummm, maybe you should realize that it is you asking about source rather than worthiness. The wisdom of the Bible is pretty damb rock solid. Comoslogical sources remember? atheism is not anti-theism. There are plenty of atheist who simply look out and do not see a God. No problem. When it becomes an anti-religious Crusade? Well, at that point we see the down side of zealotry where the zeal for ones side is great .... to the point where it ignores arbitrary authority on its own behalf. Do not mmistake your ideology with your zeal - often one merely serves as the cover for the other. Sort of like Charles Mason being a 'Christian'. I Once again, for a guy not being forced to do ANYTHING, you sure seem awfuk worried about battling something that is clearly not happening. You said we could, I agree. We could all shoot ourselves in the head right now too. The question is why would we do something so obviously stupid?
Geee MP: I notice you got sort of side tracked from the conversation we were holding. Is it possible now that I might get a response from you on my last response to you located at http://www.politicalforum.com/3909240-post72.html It would be appreciated.
Actually, the claim I have made is that atheism is whatever the hell is wants to be, or needs to be, in order to feel smuggly superior over anyone and everything. And what better way to do that than by having no standards? And we see this with claims that atheism both does and does not have a docrtine. That it is and is not JUST the belief in no God. That is not a religion, but has religious requirements. etc. You tell me what that is about? A Rationalist can stake out an defend an intellectual position, it seems quite the opposite to be marking out ever changing territory and principles based solely on demonizing that which one diagrees with. Hence doctrine - which I believe atheism quite obviously has, and you apparently agree with me Why should you look at a woman as a sexual object rather than a human being? How do you think God see her? How do you see yoru daughter? This stuff hard? How many perfect people are there? So, once again, what is the solution to our imperfections? Cricticism of someone else's solution is not a solution. Generally, most professions have a structured manner of disagreement that is solutive. Issue, discussion and RECOMMEDNATION. You think something is stupid? Great, come up with a better idea! Atheism is not better than religion when all it does in complain about religion. Quite the opposite actually, and, perhaps that is why people actually interested in solving problems, particularly those involving humans beings rather than just data, are rarely attracted to atheism. No, it i called Christian doctrine. Nice logical rebuttal of it BTW. Their reputations while alive suffer plenty. Now, why not be evil if there is no consequence? We all die? Papa Joe the embodiment of the rejection of God?
Well, look, I don't think there's anything further to discuss. We are at an essential impasse. You believe - even champion - "might makes right," and I think that that is, without qualification, utterly pernicious. You might as well have said, "I think Pol Pot was justified in his genocide." I mean, after that, there really just is nothing to discuss. In my anti-theism, I suppose you think that I'm doing Satan's bidding, etc. etc., and that what I believe has to be stamped out, by God if not by anybody else. The only thing left is to try and persuade people between us.
Thus the continuing saga between Good v Evil or Atheism v Christianity or Right v Wrong. Confirming the scripture pertaining to spiritual warfare. You will continue to plant your seed in the minds of unsuspecting people and I will counter your efforts by assisting them in removing your seed from their mind. BTW: Legal maxims would indicate that when you cannot refute a claim, that claim stands as truth in law.
Well, then I have a question for you Modus: War? At what point is it rational and reasonable to resist injustice? And if you do so, might quite obviously is the tool to make right. It is not a question of the tool being right, but whether the tool is being used for the right purposes. Killing a man for no reason is murder. Killing a man attempting to rape and murder a woman is not murder. It is honor.
You don't even have to go to the extreme example of "murder" and or "rape". Suppose that MP were to invite you to his home for a little get together. Upon arrival, the first thing you do is kick his cat or dog; then you proceed to his living room, kick back and throw your muddy shoes on his really elegant coffee table; then you ask where the bathroom is and you go in there and **ss all over the floor instead of using the proper accommodations; then you intentionally knock a hole in the wall of the living room: MP at this point is telling you to leave: you refuse: what will MP do? Will MP use his own force, or will MP lean on the police power to cause you to leave?
The word "cult" to me...has no real meaning. It can't be defined accurately. I simply view some religions harmful and some religions beneficial--belief systems are not equally the same.
Why don't you quote for me an atheist who is spouting "doctrine" - their words, not yours. Discussion of the subject in this forum, should make it plain by now that atheism involves a complex set of propositions. There are a variety of different "flavors" of atheism. Atheism has some affinities with the religious sensibility, because it concerns propositions about what is ultimately real, and indeed with what are our moral motivations in a godless universe. Atheism is not a religion, proper, precisely because it has no doctrine - a body of beliefs that one is obligated to fideistically assent to. This is what makes it different form Buddhism, say, which in other respects is quite atheistic. It's true enough that atheism, as a worldview, presupposes and reacts to theism. Much of the positive content of the belief system of atheism, consists in the implications of rejecting theistic beliefs. You seem to think this is a big deal. I don't see why. Historically it makes much more sense that the religious worldview would come before the atheistic one, just as myth comes before science. The variety of motives for being an atheist is such, that it's not surprising that there is no one single, monolithic body of propositions outlining the worldview. For the purposes of your own arguments, you continually choose to deny this simple truth; but you're not fooling anybody, Neutral. Hey, one of the basic truths about sex, is that there is a certain degree of objectification of the other involved in it. When you're with a lover, you don't want to be thinking "now, don't forget, this is his mother's favorite son" - ! I mean, come on. And to say that a certain degree of normal objectification of strangers, is morally equivalent to actually having sex with someone? Morally equivalent to fornication (the horror!), or adultery, or rape? Give me a break, Neutral. Though that is the message that the scripture clearly intends. Again, this is something that bothers you, not me. Imperfection is not a problem to be "solved." Imperfection is just life. Wrong. Criticism is an essential step to the discovery of solutions. The Dialectic. Atheism is a much-needed corrective to the great deal of obfuscatory nonsense peddled by all religions. Religion is itself in many ways a problem. It leads people to make life-or-death decisions on poor evidence. It will no longer get away with it, though, because popular atheism has come into its own. Yes. Sorry Neutral. Very often, the end is not happy.
As we are living creatures who reproduce sexually, humans are sexual beings with a myriad of convictions and desires concerning such basic instincts, across a wide spectrum of possibility... for example, one may not see their daughter as a sexual agent, but lots of other people might, and the feelings could be mutual. This stuff hard? Ummm... why do we need a 'solution'? How about managing them? It's a good start to not to get off to a bad start. I see no evidence that religious people are 'interested in solving problems'; more accurately, they seem concerned with feeling that they have solved what they believe are the problems. Like that 'sin' nonsense. The consequence is that you have lived your ONLY life badly amongst your fellow humans, those which you share your existence; not only do terrestrial repercussions prove harmful to your remaining life, but your toxic relationship with others feeds back into your poisoned life. Now... why not be evil if there was an instant way out called 'salvation'?
You claimed that atheists have a moral code. Now? Yawn. There is more than one valid religion out there. There is more than one denomination of Christianity out there. None of that means we do nt have doctrine does it? And atheists have Bibles too! http://books.google.com/books?id=9n...&resnum=2&ved=0CFMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Oh look, it is about how science eliminates religion! Exactly what you say! I wonder how tha coincidence was caused without a formal indoctrination .... er, education program. Or was that random chance? No it doesn;t. That is no more so the case that my being a Christian pre-disposes me to hating all other religions. Believing there is no God and actively hating those who disagree with you are not the same thing - not by a long shot. And if atheists do not believe that they can co-exist with religion? WTF do think will inevitably happen? Religion has the Rangers on their side, please bear that in mind. so we'll be repealling the modern concepts of sexual harrassment? Meritocracy? Child pornography laws? Tell me why we should not control our sexual urges? Why would it bother someone with concepty of love and forgiveness? You are the one thinking it confines you to Hell - forceably so. Seems it bothers you far more than me. Just sayin'. Yep, imperfaction, like life, still has to be dealt with. May come as a shock, but it happens. Oh? You mean thesis (and this part if key) + antithesis = synthesis? You do realize that an antithesis is an alternate solution or possibility, not just telling someone why they are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up? Especially when the criticism of teh thesis is itself horrifically inaccurate. Let me know when you find actual fault with the tecahing of Jesus rather than with the idea of religion. Then well talk about whether your statement is anything other than an ideological declaration - itself peddled nonsense. And atheism does not? You do realize that your faith that there is no God is just that, faith? You tell me why accepting that Love and Forgiveness are good things, the very best of things, is a life or death decision? Or simple acknowledgement of teh truth of that paradigm. Once again, you rail against your own strawman of religion, and, as Sun Tzu said, it would be best if you knew the reality of your enemy. For when you attack a strawman? The real man does just fine. Read the Bible. The end is just fine. I thank God daily for the gift of life he has given me, th egood people he has allowed me to meet, the service on others behalf he has grated be strength, discipline and honor to serve. He is truely a king and loving God. I thank him every day for bringing me into his wisdom, of showing me the strength of compassion, tolerance, and the acceptance of diversity while maintaining committment to core standards and beliefs. Sych instances have been a bridge into communities filled with wonderful people in the best, and worst, places on this earth. the end is indeed very happy.
