View Full Version : MoFo's Religion
John McClane
12-01-06, 06:48 PM
I've found myself in a situation where two of my closest friends, who are girls, are devout believers. So anything I say is wrong. And they try to serve me guilt on a platter afterwords.
Mad Hatter
12-02-06, 07:46 AM
I've found myself in a situation where two of my closest friends, who are girls, are devout believers. So anything I say is wrong. And they try to serve me guilt on a platter afterwords.
That makes me want to shun religion...
John McClane
12-02-06, 11:18 AM
That makes me want to shun religion...I like the conflict actually. It's amazing how the "moral" people get absolutely pissed off when you question them.
Actually, just recently I had an exchange of e-mails with this one Christian and they were very well thought out and extremely nice. Neither one of us called the other stupid, dumb, etc. I used the word ignorant in the being of the conversation but I don't consider that an insult. But I think that word is what really gets me into my predicaments; ignorant. I don't think many people really understand what it means and think of it as an insult.
But I think that word is what really gets me into my predicaments; ignorant. I don't think many people really understand what it means and think of it as an insult.
Well, it's rarely a complement. What's your definition of 'ignorant' then? (And can i borrow your dictionary? This could get me out of so many past arguments ;))
John McClane
12-02-06, 02:13 PM
Well, it's rarely a complement. What's your definition of 'ignorant' then? (And can i borrow your dictionary? This could get me out of so many past arguments ;))Well, that I know. It's more like a neutral term. You're just uninformed or not educated on the subject. Or you make a statement that is lacking information.
Dictionary.com:
lacking in knowledge or training
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
uninformed
You think that's neutral? To suggest that someone has no idea what they're talking about?
(What were they talking about anyway? ;))
John McClane
12-03-06, 08:09 PM
You think that's neutral? To suggest that someone has no idea what they're talking about?
(What were they talking about anyway? ;))I really don't find it to be an insult. If someone called me ignorant and I didn't think I was, I'd show why I wasn't ignorant. If I didn't know anything on the subject, I'd go research it.
We were talking about condom use being sinful.
I really don't find it to be an insult.
It definitely ain't neutral tho is it ;)
We were talking about condom use being sinful.
Ok, I can imagine what kind of argument you were having.
You might be interested in this:
Teenagers special: Going all the way (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18524891.300-teenagers-special-going-all-the-way.html)
It drives home the message that abstinence isn't a 'cure all' (to socially transmitted diseases etc) - But it also suggests that contraception-advocation promotes sex a bit too readily n'all.
There's still a meeting of minds to be had on where contraception and morality contribute to a better way of living. (Altho on Africa you've pretty much got the argument won ;))
Don't think that just coz they're fact-less in some of their decisions that they're entirely wrong tho. That's all ;)
John McClane
12-03-06, 10:38 PM
There's still a meeting of minds to be had on where contraception and morality contribute to a better way of living. (Altho on Africa you've pretty much got the argument won ;))
Don't think that just coz they're fact-less in some of their decisions that they're entirely wrong tho. That's all ;)My argument was pretty much completely reserved towards AIDS in third world countries. So I don't exactly see how someone could be right on deeming the use of condoms sinful in those disease stricken areas.
My argument was pretty much completely reserved towards AIDS in third world countries. So I don't exactly see how someone could be right on deeming the use of condoms sinful in those disease stricken areas.
I agree with you there JM.
And i agree that their 'it's a 100% sinful' attitude is definitely ****e.
But...
Just coz they're wrong on Africa (and they pretty much are) doesn't mean they're 100% wrong all told.
(And if you go around calling them '100% ignorant' they're never going to listen to you at all ;))
John McClane
12-03-06, 11:04 PM
I agree with you there JM.
And i agree with you that their 'it's a 100% sinful' attitude is ****e.
But...
Just coz they're wrong on Africa (and they pretty much are) doesn't mean they're 100% wrong all told.
Finding a middle ground where you can discuss things is normally better than going completely gung-ho ;)Yes, I agree. But like I said, I was specifically talking about the situation in Africa.
I don't agree that deeming condoms acceptable would make children more prone to sexual activity. Think of it like this, is most of the country [USA] Catholic? If so, then yes deeming them acceptable would probably be bad. But really, there's no threat to the teenagers virginity in America if they allow condom use.
But really, there's no threat to the teenagers virginity in America if they allow condom use.
The broadest studies available (mentioned in that article) suggest otherwise. That's all i was saying. The girls are wrong to state that condom-advocation is 100% wrong. You probably wrong to say it's '100% right' (on it's own).
Part of standing up to religious dogma is having to deal with the stats (on the frequent occasions when they won't ;))
John McClane
12-03-06, 11:21 PM
The broadest studies available (mentioned in that article) suggest otherwise. That's all i was saying. The girls are wrong to state that condom-advocation is 100% wrong. You might be wrong if you're saying it's '100% right' (on it's own).
Part of standing up to religious dogma is having to deal with the stats ;)I don't think "use a condom" is going to stop sex if that's what you mean. I think proper instruction of birth control methods and teaching of abstinence will work.
And that link didn't work.
I don't think "use a condom" is going to stop sex if that's what you mean. I think proper instruction of birth control methods and teaching of abstinence will work.
And that link didn't work.
That's what the article concludes - a combination of the two approaches works best at limiting STDs (altho not loss of virginity - as you seemed to suggest earlier ;)).
(It's a good factual article if you can get it by other means incidentally - damn thing's supposed to be free access).
In that case, i'd just reiterate - don't call your mates 'idiots' and they might just listen to more of what you've got to say ;)
John McClane
12-03-06, 11:32 PM
That's what the article concludes - a combination of the two approaches works best at limiting STDs (not loss of virginity ;)). (It's a good factual article if you can get it by other means incidentally - damn thing's supposed to be free access).
In that case, i'd just reiterate - don't call your mates 'idiots' and they might just listen to you ;)I'd be happy to link you to the blog I wrote. You'll discover exactly why they got mad. I'm a lot meaner in my writing then my speech. I'll PM it to you.
I never said she was stupid. ;)
Gorguts
01-10-07, 06:22 PM
Atheist. Woo...party?
Ash_Lee
01-23-07, 05:43 PM
Possibly Christian, but I think I was converted by one of those internet scare stories about someone's vision of hell. Plus my mum made me go to church when I was younger.
Whatever I do believe in, it wasn't out of choice that's for sure. And yet, it's not something I can simply turn off either.
Thinking hurt my brain.
Catholic, but rarely attend mass
Sexy Celebrity
01-25-07, 11:42 AM
I am slowly embracing calling myself an agnostic, but I don't know if that truly is what I am or what I should call myself. I believe there might be life after death... I believe there might not be. From all of the hard evidence that I have seen - not imagined, not thought of, but seen - life after death looks silly and impossible.
Besides all the crap there is in life to deal with, what's with the death process? I know this is something religious and spiritual people ignore, but death is disgusting and morbid. I can't truly find beauty in it. I am very squeamish about looking at real death. Last year, I checked out a disturbing magazine called Shock, which featured photos of a man's head decomposing in a matter of death. He turned all black and slimy, worms were laying eggs in his nose, soon they were covered all over his head, and then it turned to a skull. I had trouble eating meat for awhile after this. It was so disgusting. I had to throw the magazine away fast so I'd never see it again.
These things disturb me (and they're not just little things - it happens to everything alive) and truly make me thing about the whole concept of life after death. You mean to tell me that I'm just gonna exit my body upon death and not have to stick around for the whole decomposition? That I'll be free and go to some beautiful place?
Why did God make such a disgusting, freakish place for us to inhabit? Yeah, there's a lot of good things you can experience in life - for some people. But there's also A LOT of bad. Yeah, it's a "miracle" we exist at all and have evolved and all that - but are we the only ones? Is the Rare Earth theory true? What's with space being so dark and lonely? What's with the other planets in the solar system being so devoid of life? If you say this is all just a test, why does there need to be a test? Why does God need to care about everything and everybody in the first place? Especially if he can't even make the world and the universe more manageable, more comfortable?
Life is tough... the world is sickening... the universe is dark and cold. We are propelled to make it more comfortable for ourselves. To wait until a beautiful afterlife? Would it really be *that* beautiful?
I can see why people hope... I can see why people choose to have faith... I can see why people feel God exists solely because we're here, there's something instead of nothing, I am me, I am not you, how can that be, why is it true?
But I can also see the hard reality that death looks... like, the end. There are such things as endings. A movie ends. Even if it has a sequel, the sequel ends. I don't remember anything before my beginning. A spiritual person might say, "Oh, that's because God made you forget about why you came here, your past life" etc. But these are all just theories. They sound like fantasy. They sound like coping mechanisms.
We should all truly appreciate each other more (if we're good people) and remember to say "I love you" to someone we do because we really may not get another chance to if something happened to them and they died. We may not see them again in person. People who hate agnostics and atheists need to just shut the F up because at least we're here to tell you, Look - death is extinction. As long as you're alive, you won't see someone who's died in person ever. APPRECIATE SOMEONE YOU LOVE WHO'S ALIVE!
We've had all of these wars where anyone religious will just kill people left and right, like it's a video game. They don't think about it. Their mothers at home, their girlfriends, their boyfriends, their wives, their husbands... grieving in sorrow for their loved one who was just killed unnecessarily. George Bush keeps sending people over to fight in the war and won't let others come home. They just want to be with their loved ones. Most people don't even understand what death is. They think it's so temporary. So what if I get shot and die? According to John Edward, I'll just cross over. Then my girlfriend can get tickets to be on his show, he'll explain to her that I'm still around and she can feel my energy and love pouring forth from the other side. She'll accept this and move on. Alright, I'm ready to die... FOR MY COUNTRY!!! You're dying for nobody. Unless you had some lunatic father who told you to go out there and die to make him proud... That's another sick, sad belonging of the world - mental illness.
John McClane
01-25-07, 12:43 PM
Very good post Sexy Celebrity. I really don't know where to begin. I agree with you that the world is, generally, a bad place. However, I think we (mankind) could help prevent and stop a lot of the bad. There will always be "evil", unfortunely. It's just our power to stop it is immense. :yup:
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
02-15-07, 08:27 PM
You're all a bunch of satanists. I only drink holy water cause it has the most electrolytes and taste better than that tap crap.
John McClane
02-15-07, 09:34 PM
Rereading this thread I found some good points and some rather dumb points too. Oh well, no need in stirring up a rather dead topic.
Caitlyn
03-07-07, 02:34 PM
Native American spiritualist....
Raziel1
07-14-07, 04:17 AM
Is this thread finally done? Just when I wanted to get some more negative feedback. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
John McClane
07-14-07, 02:13 PM
Is this thread finally done? Just when I wanted to get some more negative feedback. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Oh, it's never done. :D In fact, this topic has moved to the Shoutbox as of, say, the last few months. :D
Raziel1
07-14-07, 09:28 PM
Yeah I was around when this one got started. It has been a hot button.
John McClane
07-14-07, 11:14 PM
Yeah I was around when this one got started. It has been a hot button.Yup, I've had a lot of bad rep in here. :D
Raziel1
07-14-07, 11:38 PM
What ya gonna do??
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
07-15-07, 02:12 AM
"I believe in science!" - Nacho Libre
That's the only part I remember from that movie. Oh yeah, eating toast too. Wait, there's also this feeling that says, even though I only fully remember two funny parts there's a third feeling that says the whole thing sucked.
I like religion but it should be a choice.
John McClane
07-15-07, 03:04 AM
What ya gonna do??I'm going to find a dark corner and cry, of course. :D
A question for Roman Catholics.
I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church. I had First Communion, Confirmation... does this mean I am always a Roman Catholic unless I convert to another religion? You see, I was forced into this religion by my parents and no longer want to be in it, or any religion for that matter. I don't say that I am a member of any religion, but am I whether I want to be or not? Or is there some process I go through to get out of the Roman Catholic church? Or am I out because I don't believe and no longer practice?
John McClane
07-15-07, 02:20 PM
A question for Roman Catholics.
I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church. I had First Communion, Confirmation... does this mean I am always a Roman Catholic unless I convert to another religion? You see, I was forced into this religion by my parents and no longer want to be in it, or any religion for that matter. I don't say that I am a member of any religion, but am I whether I want to be or not? Or is there some process I go through to get out of the Roman Catholic church? Or am I out because I don't believe and no longer practice?If I had to say anything, I'd say the last one makes the most logical sense. Of course, the track record on Roman Catholics hasn't been very logical. ;D
If I had to say anything, I'd say the last one makes the most logical sense. Of course, the track record on Roman Catholics hasn't been very logical. ;D
It sounds logical, but I do know that if you haven't been to mass in awhile and start going again you are back in the religion. So it would also make sense that I have to go through some sort of ritual to get out completely. My brother got married in a Pentecostal church and was told he is no longer a Roman Catholic. :rolleyes:
John McClane
07-15-07, 04:40 PM
It sounds logical, but I do know that if you haven't been to mass in awhile and start going again you are back in the religion. So it would also make sense that I have to go through some sort of ritual to get out completely. My brother got married in a Pentecostal church and was told he is no longer a Roman Catholic. :rolleyes:That's why the Catholic church can brag about such huge numbers, they make it very difficult to get out of it. Really, you're not Catholic if you say you're not Catholic. I'm sorry you got forced into something that's pretty life changing. That's one thing that really bugs me about extremists, they make their children feel like there's no choice.
A question for Roman Catholics.
I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church. I had First Communion, Confirmation... does this mean I am always a Roman Catholic unless I convert to another religion? You see, I was forced into this religion by my parents and no longer want to be in it, or any religion for that matter. I don't say that I am a member of any religion, but am I whether I want to be or not? Or is there some process I go through to get out of the Roman Catholic church? Or am I out because I don't believe and no longer practice?
You are out :yup: when i fill in forms and it asks religion I just put none :yup: I don't think the Catholic church would want me back :eek:
Raziel1
07-15-07, 09:14 PM
That's one thing that really bugs me about extremists, they make their children feel like there's no choice.
Choice in what? Not being any religion besides theres?
John McClane
07-15-07, 09:21 PM
Choice in what? Not being any religion besides theres?Yea, feeling like they can't say "Mom/Dad, I don't agree with you."
Raziel1
07-15-07, 11:34 PM
Well then I think that has to do with parenting skills, and not being an extremest.
Well then I think that has to do with parenting skills, and not being an extremest.
it's probably both :yup:
Tis a bit funny, I have not gone to church in a long while; I cannot remember ever going to church with my children, however, most of them attend church regularly and I applaude them for it. Go figure:) .
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
07-16-07, 12:56 AM
http://umsis.miami.edu/~soliveri/Page2_files/image013.jpg
Raziel1
07-17-07, 12:02 AM
http://umsis.miami.edu/~soliveri/Page2_files/image013.jpg
very tasteless, and offensive
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
07-17-07, 01:01 AM
very tasteless, and offensive
That's what makes it so funny! :rotfl:
John McClane
07-17-07, 04:52 PM
That's what makes it so funny! :rotfl:Agreed!
What is offensive about it? It's Jesus pointing and giving a thumbs up. I don't get it...
Oh, come on. Anyone who pretends not to see how that could be offensive is playing dumb.
It's a goofy and colloquial representation of something many people consider to be highly serious. Wouldn't you expect a reaction if you put a purple feathered fedora on Buddha, too?
I'm not playing dumb - I AM dumb...
I just don't see why someone would be offended by that. Now if Jesus was giving the middle finger I would understand.
Well, I'm certainly not calling anyone dumb. It's just obvious to me, I suppose. I'll give it another try: it takes something very serious and important to some people, and makes it very goofy. If you can understand why some Native Americans find the Cleveland Indians logo (http://www.celebopedia.com/cleveland-indians/images/cleveland-indians.jpg) offensive, then you can understand why some Christians find the "Buddy Jesus" images offensive.
Really, making light of a somber subject is the entire point. There's nothing humorous about it if you take away the underlying seriousness. It is the outrageousness, and the contrast between the serious events and their cartoonish depiction, that creates the humor here. Hence, Raz saying it's tasteless, and both Pimp and John concluding that that's why it's funny.
So is a picture of a laughing Jesus offensive? I was told it is but then I saw a picture of a laughing Jesus outside the church across the street.
So is a picture of a laughing Jesus offensive?
I'd say it depends on the picture. If it's just Jesus laughing, then no, in my opinion there's nothing inherently offensive about it. If he's flashing a big cartoonish grin, then yeah, it might be, especially considering that raising people's ire is really the only reason to create such an image.
In my mind, this is all pretty straightforward if you treat it like anything else that people may find serious. Various people think that various things are somber, and should be treated with respect. They are therefore offended when these things are treated flippantly. What's so hard to understand about that?
I was told it is but then I saw a picture of a laughing Jesus outside the church across the street.
Well, there's no giant meeting of all the world's Christians, so, inevitably, we're going to have different opinions about these sorts of things from time to time.
Piddzilla
07-17-07, 06:44 PM
Oh, come on. Anyone who pretends not to see how that could be offensive is playing dumb.
It's a goofy and colloquial representation of something many people consider to be highly serious. Wouldn't you expect a reaction if you put a purple feathered fedora on Buddha, too?
Actually, at first I couldn't understand how anyone could be offended by that picture. Then I remembered that if there is something that religious christians take more seriously than Christianity it is things that could be the tiniest bit offensive towards Christianity. I think that someone who experience that picture as offensive probably shouldn't surf the Net. Nor go out. And, btw, the majority of buddhists as opposed to some christians, it seems, are practical people. And with a sense of humour as well. I'm pretty sure they would laugh at a feathered fedora on Buddha, what the hell ever that is.
Jeez..... It's not like J's got a fork up his ass or something... At first I actually thought you were being sarcastic with your post, Chris. But then I read the next one...
Well, I'm certainly not calling anyone dumb. It's just obvious to me, I suppose. I'll give it another try: it takes something very serious and important to some people, and makes it very goofy. If you can understand why some Native Americans find the Cleveland Indians logo (http://www.celebopedia.com/cleveland-indians/images/cleveland-indians.jpg) offensive, then you can understand why some Christians find the "Buddy Jesus" images offensive.
Hmm... You mean the "Buddy Jesus" image is racist?
Really, making light of a somber subject is the entire point. There's nothing humorous about it if you take away the underlying seriousness. It is the outrageousness, and the contrast between the serious events and their cartoonish depiction, that creates the humor here. Hence, Raz saying it's tasteless, and both Pimp and John concluding that that's why it's funny.
I'm not exactly laughing my ass off so I guess I don't understand the controversy in the first place. I guess I would have to live in a country where Christianity still plays a significant part for many people while other people wish it didn't and therefore finds pictures like that one funny.
What I think is funny is that no one knows what Jesus looked like so it wouldn't matter in what way anyone decides to depict him - serious or gay. :D It's a question of interpretation, right?
I didn't find it offensive :nope: I just saw it as someone's attempt to attract maybe young people to religion, making religion look as if it could be fun. The Church in Australia is really missing a lot of young people as they see it as boring http://bestsmileys.com/religous/1.gif
Actually, at first I couldn't understand how anyone could be offended by that picture. Then I remembered that if there is something that religious christians take more seriously than Christianity it is things that could be the tiniest bit offensive towards Christianity.
They're one and the same; someone who takes Christianity seriously is obviously going to take things mocking it seriously. Isn't this to be expected?
And, btw, buddhists as opposed to some christians, it seems, are practical people. And with a sense of humour as well. I'm pretty sure they would laugh at a feathered fedora on Buddha, what the hell ever that is.
I imagnie Buddhists would vary on the appropriateness of the joke in the same way Christians might.
Regardless, just about everyone has a few things they deem too serious to joke about, even practical people with a broad sense of humor. The only thing that sets Christians apart in this instance, then, is whether or not Jesus Christ is one of those things.
Jeez..... It's not like J's got a fork up his ass or something... At first I actually thought you were being sarcastic with your post, Chris. But then I read the next one...
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I also wasn't claiming to be offended. Truth be told, I'm not quite sure what I think of the whole "Buddy Jesus" thing. But I'm not amazed that some people find it offensive, either.
Hmm... You mean the "Buddy Jesus" image is racist?
Nope. Just disrespectful; and deliberately so. It's making fun of something simply because some people don't think it should be made fun of.
I'm not exactly laughing my ass off so I guess I don't understand the controversy in the first place. I guess I would have to live in a country where Christianity still plays a significant part for many people while other people wish it didn't and therefore finds pictures like that one funny.
I find it hard to believe that someone would have to live in a predominantly Christian country to understand this issue. Neither of us live in a predominantly Muslim country, and neither of us is black, but I'm sure we can both understand why certain cinematic stereotypes, for example, bother each group of people.
What I think is funny is that no one knows what Jesus looked like so it wouldn't matter in what way anyone decides to depict him - serious or gay.
Completely true. We can probably assume that he was very dark skinned, and I believe there's a passage in The Bible which indicates that he wasn't much to look at, but that's about it.
John McClane
07-17-07, 07:12 PM
I have to agree with Yoda on this one. However, that's one reason why it's funny (the fact that people get so offended). The same applies to stuff besides Jesus but, the fact that anyone can get offended by something as simple as that just makes the entire thing so silly. So yea, I totally can see why someone would get offended but honestly, I just really don't care.
I understand - people get offended by something they think is mocking something they believe in. And the intention of "Buddy Jesus" is to offended those people who get offended, and to make those who find it funny that people find it offensive laugh.
Raziel1
07-17-07, 08:59 PM
Just don't think making lite of a Saviour who died for my sins (and the worlds for that matter) is in good taste. I think some things in life should be held as sacred, this being one of these, but then again if you don't believe in Christ or what He taught or knew the sacrifice He made then it wouldn't bother you to make lite of that sacrifice, or to poke fun.
John McClane
07-18-07, 12:13 AM
Just don't think making lite of a Saviour who died for my sins (and the worlds for that matter) is in good taste. I think some things in life should be held as sacred, this being one of these, but then again if you don't believe in Christ or what He taught or knew the sacrifice He made then it wouldn't bother you to make lite of that sacrifice, or to poke fun.Oh yes, I'm so grateful for his sacrifice for the sins I hadn't even committed yet. And don't even get me started on original sin because man, Jesus was a great guy.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
07-18-07, 02:36 AM
I'm glad that picture was able to spur such a lively conversation.
For me, that picture is both hilarious and capable of being offensive. It represents the way religion is caught between remaining traditional and current. Christmas comes to mind. That whole tradition has become commercialized. It's a matter of time before something like "Buddy Christ" is used to compete with other religions, like Scientology. If cheap marketing gimmicks can work in the competition between Coke and Pepsi, why wouldn't someone want to apply them to religion? Of course it's sac religious, but so was working on Sunday.
"I told those f_cks down at the league office a thousand times that I don't roll on Shabbos!" - Walter, The Big Lebowski
Piddzilla
07-18-07, 05:25 AM
Just don't think making lite of a Saviour who died for my sins (and the worlds for that matter) is in good taste. I think some things in life should be held as sacred, this being one of these, but then again if you don't believe in Christ or what He taught or knew the sacrifice He made then it wouldn't bother you to make lite of that sacrifice, or to poke fun.
Held sacred to who? I am a christian and although I am not a practicing one or a religious person I think Jesus was allright. A whole lot more allright than most christians as a matter of fact. You are right, the figure obviously is offensive to some people, including you. That doesn't mean that you can't produce such figures, only that you have to be careful about where you post pictures of them. You would think that a forum about film where pretty much everything goes would be ok - but apparently there's one or a couple of individuals here as well who took offense. I don't know, but my guess is that you're a massive minority. So, since no one's attacking christians or christianity (because no one is) I think perhaps that you just as well as others could show some tolerance.
Christmas comes to mind. That whole tradition has become commercialized.
Yeah, what's worse really? To a devoted christian, I mean. Is the way we celebrate Christmas not further away from what Jesus was about than that smiling figure?
It's similar to the sex vs. violence debate within film. A naked guy is much much worse to the moral guards than people shooting the heads off each other.
To me that figure isn't making fun of Jesus. If it's making fun of anything it is of the christians who actually use Jesus and his message for commercial purposes. The figure is ironic to me, but there's nothing ironic about smiling preachers who want you and your money in their church.
Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through all trials and tribulations,
We will travel every nation,
With my plastic Jesus I'll go far.
Piddzilla
07-18-07, 05:26 AM
Where did my signature go?
[edit]There it is again! Strange....
Raziel1
07-18-07, 09:06 PM
Oh yes, I'm so grateful for his sacrifice for the sins I hadn't even committed yet. And don't even get me started on original sin because man, Jesus was a great guy.
Yeah great as in God manifested into man.
John McClane
07-18-07, 09:53 PM
Yeah great as in God manifested into man.Yea, never quite understood that one. What is it? Is he not powerful enough up there in his omnipresent form? Why with the meat machine? Are we to assume humans are more powerful so he chose that form to do his work? :D
Why can't we think of Jesus as the party animal he was?
John McClane
07-19-07, 12:06 AM
Why can't we think of Jesus as the party animal he was?Because he was the perfect man. Only, he really wasn't a man. Yea, I know; doesn't make sense. Don't look at me, I'm not the one that came up with the story. :D
Raziel1
07-19-07, 11:15 PM
Because he was the perfect man. Only, he really wasn't a man. Yea, I know; doesn't make sense. Don't look at me, I'm not the one that came up with the story. :D
First, I don't want to come off as rude, but it's not a story. It was real. I am sure you didn't mean it like that just wanted to clarify it. Second, He had to be in human form to fulfill Gods plan for the redemption of man. I don't know if you read the Bible or what you think of it, but we all know that man is a sinner(Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.). Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve sin has existed. There is a penalty for the sin we commit (Rom. 6:23a For the wages of sin is death,) What is this death? It is an eternal separation from God and to torment in Hell for eternity. So God doesn't wish that any should perish ( 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.). So in order for man to be able to get to heaven he needed a mediator, or a go between if you will, and that was Christ Jesus. Who lived a perfect sinless life (as you stated) and took upon the sins of the world on the cross. Therefore the debt for sin has been paid and given freely to all who accept the free gift of salvation.
John McClane
07-20-07, 12:49 AM
First, I don't want to come off as rude, but it's not a story. It was real.Yes, I'm sure it was too.
I am sure you didn't mean it like that just wanted to clarify it.No, I meant it like that.
Second, He had to be in human form to fulfill Gods plan for the redemption of man.Geeh, my guess was correct then.
Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve sin has existed. There is a penalty for the sin we commitHot dog!!!
What is this death? It is an eternal separation from God and to torment in Hell for eternity.Doesn't sound bad to me.
So God doesn't wish that any should perishOK then, don't let us.
So in order for man to be able to get to heaven he needed a mediator, or a go between if you will, and that was Christ Jesus.That makes God a weakling, but I'm becoming redundant.
Who lived a perfect sinless life (as you stated) and took upon the sins of the world on the cross. Therefore the debt for sin has been paid and given freely to all who accept the free gift of salvation.Wow, he did all that by dieing on a stick of wood? He's even greater then I thought!!!
He had to be in human form to fulfill Gods plan for the redemption of man.
Its not working :nope:
John McClane
07-20-07, 12:01 PM
lol you kill me John!It's the source material, it just makes it way too easy. :D
But honestly now, I'm ready for a civil discussion.
What, no Jedi category?
Pshaw!
John McClane
07-20-07, 01:19 PM
I used that joke when I was in the SATs, it had the place in tears. :laugh:
donniedarko
06-25-12, 11:02 PM
I am an atheist. I come from a Jewish background but really early on, and I mean really early on I started questioning religion. So I've been augnostic/atheist for pretty much my whole life.
Gabriella Lynn
06-25-12, 11:03 PM
I'm atheist. Was raised "Christian" Have gone to catholic churches, Mormon churches, seventh day adventists churches, and Presbyterian. Not my thing at all. Too much crap about one religion being the better religion.
Not religious. I was raised Baptist, but I don't practice it.
HitchFan97
06-26-12, 12:02 AM
Catholic here, but I'm also a liberal so occasionally I have a conflict there :D My mom is the same way though, and we still go to Catholic churches and whatnot (baptized, confirmed, etc.), but its more of a general Christian set of beliefs and I do respect all such religions. So you could say I'm Catholic, but not a strict Catholic.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 03:59 AM
I read the first eight pages of this. Wow this thing has some staying power!
I am a Christian Baptist. I have been raised that way all my life. My parents are both that and the majority of people I grew up with are either Christian of Catholic.
There was a time when I decided to choose for myself what I wanted to believe. Not only do I find being a Christian more comforting. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense. Why else would we be here? What would the point of living be? What would the point of anything be? To me Atheism is the most ridiculous thing ever. That the world was just created out if nothing (which contradicts the theory of something not being able to come out of nothing), and we are just here just because?
There is a reason and a higher power.
The Rodent
06-26-12, 06:46 AM
Was baptised as a kid, my mum is very religious...
I believe in the Almighty, but it's a bit complicated to jot down in writing, Yoda knows, I had a convo with him about it.
Look up the word Panentheism, it pretty much sums up how far I go when 'labelling' my beliefs.
Gabriella Lynn
06-26-12, 11:01 AM
I read the first eight pages of this. Wow this thing has some staying power!
I am a Christian Baptist. I have been raised that way all my life. My parents are both that and the majority of people I grew up with are either Christian of Catholic.
There was a time when I decided to choose for myself what I wanted to believe. Not only do I find being a Christian more comforting. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense. Why else would we be here? What would the point of living be? What would the point of anything be? To me Atheism is the most ridiculous thing ever. That the world was just created out if nothing (which contradicts the theory of something not being able to come out of nothing), and we are just here just because?
There is a reason and a higher power.
And a lot of people don't believe it came out of nothing. A lot believe in a scientific belief such as Darwinism.
How was the higher power created?
Skepsis93
06-26-12, 11:10 AM
I called myself an atheist for a long time, but I realised that taking such a stance is essentially just as fundamental as those on the polar opposite of the argument. So I guess I'm open to believing whatever the evidence suggests - it just so happens that right now science and logic makes overwhelmingly more sense than anything else.
Gabriella Lynn
06-26-12, 11:14 AM
I called myself an atheist for a long time, but I realised that taking such a stance is essentially just as fundamental as those on the polar opposite of the argument. So I guess I'm open to believing whatever the evidence suggests - it just so happens that right now science and logic makes overwhelmingly more sense than anything else.
I completely agree with you. I still claim atheism but your smart in what you say. My boyfriend claims atheism but he loves arguing both sides because he wants to show people that there can be faults in both.
And although I don't believe atheists force their opinion nearly as much, I know they can egg on negative attention if they feel strong enough about something.
So I guess I'm open to believing whatever the evidence suggests - it just so happens that right now science and logic makes overwhelmingly more sense than anything else.
It certainly ought to; anything that would make more sense would, itself, be more logical.
But since we're talking logic, it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy: science, by its very definition, can only describe the physical. The moment it tries to comment on anything outside of that--or anything relating to morality, ethics, etc--it ceases to be science.
And a lot of people don't believe it came out of nothing. A lot believe in a scientific belief such as Darwinism.
Darwinism potentially explains the evolution of complex life, but not the existence of life itself. And certainly not the existence of the world, which is what I believe he was referring to ("...the world was just created out if nothing").
How was the higher power created?
No matter what you believe, either a) something came from nothing or b) something was always here. That's unavoidable. The difference is that this is no big deal for the theist (once you've posited a God, the idea that God is His own first cause seems reasonable), but a huge deal for the materialist, in that it essentially forces them to concede something that's pretty much at odds with anything we can observe scientifically.
The Rodent
06-26-12, 11:56 AM
God created the universe, stars, planets and their moons, gravity... like an architect builds a house.
He put the world/universe into motion by writing the natural laws (gravity, heat, energy, light, evolution etc etc etc), then took a step back and let it go... to pretty much self-govern itself.
'Darwinism' is simply a name we use to describe this self-governing evolution of life and stuff due to Darwin being brave enough to say his thoughts out loud.
My thoughts...
God is found in everything (another term could be Mother Nature ie; God is the energy that connects absolutely everything to everything else, another slightly broader term could be 'existence').
But... God is also a concious thing and is more intelligent than we mere humans can ever grasp, but is there, and will listen when you ask questions, but won't always answer and sometimes the answer you do get isn't the one you want. But God is there.
But who created God? I have no idea, as far as I know God is timeless, again it's something us mere humans won't ever be able to grasp intellectually.
My thoughts with my belief in Panentheism and the reason I believe what I believe, is that...
Darwinism, or, the 'Theory of Evolution' makes perfect sense.
I totally believe in Evolution, but it's too perfect not to have been built by something more.
I've also been on the receiving end of God's word so I undoubtedly know God's there, but that's another story, not suitable for a public forum.
Anyway, that's my thoughts...
Gabriella Lynn
06-26-12, 12:01 PM
But since we're talking logic, it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy: science, by its very definition, can only describe the physical. The moment it tries to comment on anything outside of that--or anything relating to morality, ethics, etc--it ceases to be science. (Gabby's BF again) Science doesn't try to explain morality or ethics, that's kind of the point for most atheists, we aren't trying to tell you how to live your life or asking those questions, just saying that we agree with what we can empirically observe and what can be proved. Science embodies everything in the way that if we can continue to explore theories and find out how things start then maybe we can explain as much as you can possibly find out. Religion itself is not any different from science in that they both have theories and some people fully believe in either, I agree, but as far as I know science has not caused any serious wars, bigotry, or other cruel contradictory things that are the fundamental beliefs of most religious sects.
But it makes a hell of a lot more sense. Why else would we be here? What would the point of living be? What would the point of anything be? To me Atheism is the most ridiculous thing ever. That the world was just created out if nothing (which contradicts the theory of something not being able to come out of nothing), and we are just here just because? This is why most atheists come to question religious people and then seem volatile and just as bad as most religious people in the way they argue their believes . You just read the 8 pages of people saying why they believe and think these various things and your only response is "it just makes more sense to me." I won't argue with you but you are using circular logic, you just used questions to try and support your answer, the same questions that are the initial questions for every different religion that support each one equally as well, discrediting your religion as much as theirs.
(Gabby's BF again)
Hi again. :) What's your name, anyway? If it's actually "Gabby's BF" then apologies for the interjection.
Science doesn't try to explain morality or ethics, that's kind of the point for most atheists, we aren't trying to tell you how to live your life or asking those questions, just saying that we agree with what we can empirically observe and what can be proved.
But by morality, I don't mean the niggling details about whether or not you should swear, have premarital sex, or covet your neighbor's Playstation. I mean very basic morality. It may be that some atheists like the amoral nature of materialism because it allows them to take a hands-off approach to certain moral issues, but it extends a lot further than that. Science can't have anything to say about any conception of morality, even the stuff most of us find very obvious and agreeable.
What I'm getting at is that science is not a substitute for religion. They're not even talking about the same things. And whenever one of them tries, it backfires. We see this in the early Church trying to pretend its spiritual wisdom gave it scientific wisdom (leading to a lot of ridiculous claims), and we see the opposite now, with people trying futilely to construct a morality out of pure rationalism. The difference being that we all understand how silly the former is, but lots of us haven't figured that out about the latter.
And at risk of overextending the conversation, I've yet to meet a materialist who actually did only believe what could be empirically observed. If you stop to think about what qualifies, it's a pretty narrow set of things. Empiricism is pretty much unworkable in real life, and consequently it's totally unpracticed, even by people who say they believe it.
Science embodies everything in the way that if we can continue to explore theories and find out how things start then maybe we can explain as much as you can possibly find out. Religion itself is not any different from science in that they both have theories and some people fully believe in either, I agree, but as far as I know science has not caused any serious wars, bigotry, or other cruel contradictory things that are the fundamental beliefs of most religious sects.
On pure science itself? No. But they've definitely done things that stem from an unwavering faith in science. We've seen disastrous revolutions (the French Revolution) and terrible dictatorships that were founded on rationalism and/or the explicit rejection of religion. None of these were built on a humble desire to conduct physical experiments, but they were definitely built on the idea that science and rationalism had superseded religion. Clearly, man lacks for no end of excuses to kill one another. If religion seems to have more examples of this, it's probably because rationalism is a lot newer. But it's killed a lot more relative to the short period of time its had in the conversation.
All that said, I don't deny that religion can be a dangerous thing. Even most good things can be abused, and religion is no exception. It is very potent; it can make a bad man good, but it can also make him terrible. Religion inherently raises the stakes for every human being. I think most respond well to this and start taking serious things more seriously. But some don't.
Good stuff, by the way. :)
donniedarko
06-26-12, 01:47 PM
I read the first eight pages of this. Wow this thing has some staying power!
I am a Christian Baptist. I have been raised that way all my life. My parents are both that and the majority of people I grew up with are either Christian of Catholic.
There was a time when I decided to choose for myself what I wanted to believe. Not only do I find being a Christian more comforting. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense. Why else would we be here? What would the point of living be? What would the point of anything be? To me Atheism is the most ridiculous thing ever. That the world was just created out if nothing (which contradicts the theory of something not being able to come out of nothing), and we are just here just because?
There is a reason and a higher power.
I think you've confused what Athiesm really is. I'm atheist I don't believe in The Big Bang theory, I believe it's possible, but I just don't know. Athiesm isn't a set religion different atheists believe in different things. I think the main different between atheists and people of a set religion is that we can accept things as theories that were not yet proven and people of a religion take it as a definite fact.
That's technically true, though I'm not sure I've ever met an atheist who didn't believe in the Big Bang before. Pleased to meet you. :)
Gabriella Lynn
06-26-12, 01:54 PM
Hi again. :) What's your name, anyway? If it's actually "Gabby's BF" then apologies for the interjection.
My name is James, sorry, I seem to on some occasions be willing to say something here or there and I suppose it might have been more appropriate to give a name to the words.
It may be that some atheists like the amoral nature of materialism because it allows them to take a hands-off approach to certain moral issues, but it extends a lot further than that. Science can't have anything to say about any conception of morality, even the stuff most of us find very obvious and agreeable.
I agree with this entirely, as you go on to say, as humans there are unlimited excuses and reasons for us to rationalize killing one another, and as such, some people will use atheism to not deal with certain things that are morally questionable or do things that are morally questionable.
My being atheist is just that I do have my own believes, but I do not have beliefs in a higher power or god. I may acknowledge that somehow something created us or we came to be somehow, but but only because we exist, and I follow some science to help lead me to a logical thought process as to how it may have been possible, and reasonable rules of the universe to show me how certain things are, that is all. Science is by no means a substitute for religion, and as such I would not want it to be. The absence of religion is my goal and what I achieve. I don't discredit others beliefs openly on a regular basis unless we are debating or discussing them for the reason of discussion, and I don't care to, but I observe that many religions HATE others openly, are bigot's, or believe all other religions or non-religious people are infidels.
Christianity, many Americans seem to think is the one true religion and that its the largest, but it's a small portion and it's losing ground statistically whereas religion's that started in the middle east are gaining ground. This worries me because I could really care less to see more people die because Americans are arrogant in a great deal of things "myself included" especially our "freedoms" and many other religions harbor hatred for those opposed to it.
And at risk of overextending the conversation, I've yet to meet a materialist who actually did only believe what could be empirically observed. If you stop to think about what qualifies, it's a pretty narrow set of things. Empiricism is pretty much unworkable in real life, and consequently it's totally unpracticed, even by people who say they believe it. Again, I agree with this, rarely does the materialist believe in only that, but that is because if you can't have theories and believe in at least some possibilities, or at least believe that maybe there is a better answer, then you don't have science in the first place. Because whats the point without at least looking for answers, which is the stance many atheists will take, most religious people have just been born into religion and agree with whatever they are told is what happened and what is true, whereas an atheist wants to find real answers, not just a book that says a God that looks like us made us and then later a snake made us into rational thinking people. *pun intended*
All that said, I don't deny that religion can be a dangerous thing. Even most good things can be abused, and religion is no exception. It is very potent; it can make a bad man good, but it can also make him terrible. Religion inherently raises the stakes for every human being. I think most respond well to this and start taking serious things more seriously. But some don't.
Religion has so many good aspects, but like anything with power, it is corrupted, and people take these beliefs way too far. I like that statement about it raising the stakes and I see religions place in society, thus why I try not to fight people about it too much, I just myself will disagree with it. BTW, ironically, one of my favorite bands right now is For Today, and they are the most preach-heavy crap I have ever heard, but I love the music.
wintertriangles
06-26-12, 01:56 PM
I can't say I find the Big Bang very feasible either but I also would never label myself as an atheist or anything to the sort. I could be ridiculous and say Satanic Taoist but that's more of a red herring than a true statement.
Sexy Celebrity
06-26-12, 02:41 PM
I could be ridiculous and say Satanic Taoist but that's more of a red herring than a true statement.
Ridiculous? I knew you were Satanic.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 03:01 PM
And a lot of people don't believe it came out of nothing. A lot believe in a scientific belief such as Darwinism.
How was the higher power created?
How would the Earth , everything on it just be created out of nothing? Don't you think that is just to convenient?
Darwinism also says we are related to monkeys. I don't believe that at all.
God wasn't created by anyone. He just is. He has been here before the world was even here. Our minds are way too simple to understand it all. No matter what science says.
To my atheism is a sad way to live. You are basically going through the day for no reason. Some people need science for everything (hell there is a religion called christian science). Seeing isn't believing. It is about faith.
donniedarko
06-26-12, 03:12 PM
Darwinism also says we are related to monkeys. I don't believe that at all.
.
with all the evidence for Darwinism it scares me that at this point there are still so many people who can't acknowledge it. Yes it'a still a theory but it's a strong one.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 03:14 PM
This is why most atheists come to question religious people and then seem volatile and just as bad as most religious people in the way they argue their believes . You just read the 8 pages of people saying why they believe and think these various things and your only response is "it just makes more sense to me." I won't argue with you but you are using circular logic, you just used questions to try and support your answer, the same questions that are the initial questions for every different religion that support each one equally as well, discrediting your religion as much as theirs.
That isn't circular logic. If there is no God, then what is the point of living? What value does life have? Why are we here? I don't don't believe we are here for no reason.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 03:16 PM
I think you've confused what Athiesm really is. I'm atheist I don't believe in The Big Bang theory, I believe it's possible, but I just don't know. Athiesm isn't a set religion different atheists believe in different things. I think the main different between atheists and people of a set religion is that we can accept things as theories that were not yet proven and people of a religion take it as a definite fact.
Can I ask you how do you think the earth came to be?
Atheists use science and theories and that is what makes them skeptics. Christians or anyone who is in a religion, have faith.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 03:18 PM
with all the evidence for Darwinism it scares me that at this point there are still so many people who can't acknowledge it. Yes it'a still a theory but it's a strong one.
How is it all around us? Survival of the fittest makes sense. But that is really for wild animals.
Evolution makes sense on some levels. But I believe in creation.
Gabrielle947
06-26-12, 03:28 PM
I'm baptized so officially I'm Christian,although I haven't had my First Communion,I don't know a single prayer,I've been to church two times(first time to hear friends concert and second to warm up).
I'm not sure yet whether I believe.I can find arguments against Atheism as well as against Christianity.
Sexy Celebrity
06-26-12, 03:29 PM
How would the Earth , everything on it just be created out of nothing? Don't you think that is just to convenient?
Darwinism also says we are related to monkeys. I don't believe that at all.
God wasn't created by anyone. He just is. He has been here before the world was even here. Our minds are way too simple to understand it all. No matter what science says.
To my atheism is a sad way to live. You are basically going through the day for no reason. Some people need science for everything (hell there is a religion called christian science). Seeing isn't believing. It is about faith.
Atheism is a sad way to live if you're used to living with the belief that there is a God, there is an afterlife, there is purpose to everything in our lives, people are in our lives for a reason, we will never lose anybody because they'll be around in the afterlife, etc. etc.
If you had never known those things and only knew life as something we all just did until we died and left existence, you would have the power to live your life differently, to see the world differently, to see people differently. If you see all of life as just something that comes and goes -- if you've totally given up on your own sense that God is real (among other things) -- the world can take on a much more different perspective. And in my opinion, you'd be seeing the world more correctly because religious people typically believe that everybody is a soul when the truth is that everybody is just a body. That's at least all we're guaranteed for now -- that people and other animals just come and go. Things happen -- and then other things happen.
I have started to see the world more this way. I used to believe in God and believe in an afterlife and believe in all kinds of other things -- and I still think I might be agnostic because I'm open to the possibility of something else happening after death -- I don't feel it's a guaranteed permanent blackness. Although it certainly looks likely.
Life is like a TV show with the possibility of a spinoff TV show in the air, but it's not guaranteed. The spinoff TV show is, of course, where all the characters move on to a new location (the other side or whatever.) If there's no spinoff show, the characters are done and the story's ended.
There's a lot to love about life even if it's chaotic and meaningless. Of course, there's also a lot to HATE as well. I'm not even convinced that there's such a thing as "free will." Personally, I don't really see how anybody can really choose their life and how it goes because everyone's options are strictly based on whatever your own computer (brain) knows how to do -- and what it can do. So, I actually think we're all wandering around just being affected by stuff and that life is basically like a movie that's playing in front of us with ourselves as the main star. In a sense, the only God we could ever meet is ourself since this thing we call ourself is the head chief of our perceptions. If there's another God out there, we'll have to wait and see if we ever have a face to face encounter with it. But anyway, life happens, life has happened, you can't get out unless you die or kill yourself. All you can do is be you. Guess what -- you're doing it! Are you sad?
will.15
06-26-12, 03:45 PM
How is it all around us? Survival of the fittest makes sense. But that is really for wild animals.
Evolution makes sense on some levels. But I believe in creation.
So you believe the Earth is only five or six thousand years old instead of millions? You believe man and dinosaurs existed at the same time. That dinos went extinct and animals took their place in a very short period of time?
planet news
06-26-12, 03:58 PM
But since we're talking logic, it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy: science, by its very definition, can only describe the physical. The moment it tries to comment on anything outside of that--or anything relating to morality, ethics, etc--it ceases to be science.What is your definition of "science"? There are plenty of people who think a science like evolutionary biology can explain and legislate over morality and ethics. What about the social sciences? Psychology? The very sciences that seek to explain human behavior?
Also, what is 'the physical'? What is it opposed to? The spiritual realm? Is that the same as the realm of thought? Science produces a kind of knowledge, so it subsumes a domain of thought.
Science legislates order over what-is. Morality and ethics certainly are. They have efficacy. There's no reason to think science couldn't or shouldn't attempt to bring order to it.
Furthermore, one particular science already legislates over the vast majority of all social relations: economics. It has been considered self-evident for a long time that one ought to make essentially all her decisions rationally via cost/benefit analysis.
In general, it's totally unclear to me what you even think science is. If morality and ethics lie on a 'different plane of existence' that nevertheless exists and furthermore has potentially causal effects on our plane of existence, then how exactly is that not the interest of science or any other enterprise of truth? The atom was once posited to be impenetrable. Did that stop science? No.
So, basically: the fact that religion disintegrates when attempting to justify itself using scientific knowledge does not in any way imply that science cannot utterly dominate over the realm of reality that religion claims to explain.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 04:02 PM
Atheism is a sad way to live if you're used to living with the belief that there is a God, there is an afterlife, there is purpose to everything in our lives, people are in our lives for a reason, we will never lose anybody because they'll be around in the afterlife, etc. etc.
If you had never known those things and only knew life as something we all just did until we died and left existence, you would have the power to live your life differently, to see the world differently, to see people differently. If you see all of life as just something that comes and goes -- if you've totally given up on your own sense that God is real (among other things) -- the world can take on a much more different perspective. And in my opinion, you'd be seeing the world more correctly because religious people typically believe that everybody is a soul when the truth is that everybody is just a body. That's at least all we're guaranteed for now -- that people and other animals just come and go. Things happen -- and then other things happen.
I have started to see the world more this way. I used to believe in God and believe in an afterlife and believe in all kinds of other things -- and I still think I might be agnostic because I'm open to the possibility of something else happening after death -- I don't feel it's a guaranteed permanent blackness. Although it certainly looks likely.
Life is like a TV show with the possibility of a spinoff TV show in the air, but it's not guaranteed. The spinoff TV show is, of course, where all the characters move on to a new location (the other side or whatever.) If there's no spinoff show, the characters are done and the story's ended.
There's a lot to love about life even if it's chaotic and meaningless. Of course, there's also a lot to HATE as well. I'm not even convinced that there's such a thing as "free will." Personally, I don't really see how anybody can really choose their life and how it goes because everyone's options are strictly based on whatever your own computer (brain) knows how to do -- and what it can do. So, I actually think we're all wandering around just being affected by stuff and that life is basically like a movie that's playing in front of us with ourselves as the main star. In a sense, the only God we could ever meet is ourself since this thing we call ourself is the head chief of our perceptions. If there's another God out there, we'll have to wait and see if we ever have a face to face encounter with it. But anyway, life happens, life has happened, you can't get out unless you die or kill yourself. All you can do is be you. Guess what -- you're doing it! Are you sad?
I am sorry but I must raise the b.s flag.
As humans we want purpose. We want to know what the meaning of life is. Atheists don't believe in God, therefore they don't believe in there being any meaning to life.
Basically they see life as life as animal. Animals have no souls and when they die they just die. Animals are out for number one and do whatever they can to improve their quality of life.
If there is no God, then what is life? You love for say 75 years doing something than you die and that is it. That is what atheists believe. And that doesn't make sense. Then you really might as well be a hobo all you life (though the bible does say in the end it doesn't matter who you all we all die the same way).
God gave us all free will. He knows the outcome of each choice we make.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 04:03 PM
So you believe the Earth is only five or six thousand years old instead of millions? You believe man and dinosaurs existed at the same time. That dinos went extinct and animals took their place in a very short period of time?
I believe the earth is around 12,000 years old. The moon is around the age and we wouldn't be here without our moon.
I really don't even know if dinosaurs even existed. Most of the bones we see is museums are man made.
will.15
06-26-12, 04:22 PM
If there is no God, then what is life? You love for say 75 years doing something than you die and that is it. That is what atheists believe. And that doesn't make sense. Then you really might as well be a hobo all you life (though the bible does say in the end it doesn't matter who you all we all die the same way).
God gave us all free will. He knows the outcome of each choice we make.
If there is no God, free will comes from us.
For a religious person, you sure have a racy avatar.
Gabrielle947
06-26-12, 04:26 PM
Personally,I think that to be an atheist you have to be a very strong person because to live your life without believing in some higher power is hard.
I don't know how about others but sometimes,when I have some problems I start asking God(or just other any other high power like him) for help.It happens unintentionally(not even loud,just in my mind) because humans feel safer and therefore happier when they believe that someone is controlling their life.Its easier to live when you have higher power on your side and you can turn to it.Even if you don't believe Adam and Eve's story,it's easier to live if you fool yourself.I mean,all these Christianity fanatics - maybe they are fools and idiots but most of them are happy.
Another problem with all this believing thing is religion and faith.Personally,I don't think that person can be a believer if he doesn't pray,go to church and somehow praise God.I don't believe that God will help you if you don't put any effort and just say "I believe in you".But I don't like religion mainly for things which it did in the past - how many lives were taken because of religion?Medieval was the darkest times of religion and even such things like 9/11 was partly because of religion because Al-Quaeda is a religious terrorist organisation.On the other hand,religion long long time ago prevented chaos by explaining why thunder or rain exists,why stars are in the sky,it gave a hope and a purpose.But still I don't think that this outweighs all the bad things which religion did.
That's why mainly I don't know whether to believe but I guess I'm more of an atheist because God didn't help me yet and religion does such an awful things.Still,sometimes I don't feel strong enough not to believe.Just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject.
donniedarko
06-26-12, 04:30 PM
I really don't even know if dinosaurs even existed. Most of the bones we see is museums are man made.
http://thedailygrind.robdamanii.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/StarTrekFacePalm.gif
I can't debate with extremists that completely disregard science, I end up getting frustrated because they'll just deny whatever you say. But of you truly believe those bones are fake and that despite carbon dating find fossils that are millions of years old, but you choose to believe that they're wrong. And you choose to disregard all the evidence of evolution. And you chose to believe that dinosaurs are man made, just for the reason to prove your religion, there's no point in debating. At this point you've chosen to block out anything in the contrary of what your bible says.
One point I'd always use to debate against people is this section of the bible:
"If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals." (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) there are many other lines in Deuteromy that say similar things about killing those of other religions. According to this section my parents should've killed me for becoming atheist and debating with them about religion, the excuse is that it's improperly translated. You'll find and excuse for everything that goes against your religion so there's no point in trying to sway you.
planet news
06-26-12, 04:35 PM
I'm pretty sure Filmmaker1473 is... attempting satire.
wintertriangles
06-26-12, 04:36 PM
I am sorry but I must raise the b.s flag.
As humans we want purpose. We want to know what the meaning of life is. Atheists don't believe in God, therefore they don't believe in there being any meaning to life.Well that's hilarious and false.
1) Just because most humans want purpose, probably because they're told they do, does not mean they need purpose. They give themselves purpose anyway.
2) Not believing in any god doesn't = no meaning to life. That's like the number one mistake I hear.
Basically they see life as life as animal. Animals have no souls and when they die they just die. Animals are out for number one and do whatever they can to improve their quality of life.First of all you don't know if animals have souls. Second of all, you think humans aren't trying to do what they can to improve their quality of life? Third, it's funny you don't even bring up anything about animals that isn't relevant to human behavior.
If there is no God, then what is life? You love for say 75 years doing something than you die and that is it. That is what atheists believe. And that doesn't make sense. Then you really might as well be a hobo all you life (though the bible does say in the end it doesn't matter who you all we all die the same way).Well, cliches and whatnot, life is what you make it. Also your ideas about what other people believe are so close-minded it's funny. I'm dedicating my life to art, but since it's not for god it must be useless. It doesn't make sense that you need a god to justify your existence.
God gave us all free will. He knows the outcome of each choice we make.Then why do you pray?
EDIT: I really don't even know if dinosaurs even existed. Most of the bones we see is museums are man made.:rolleyes: He's got jokes!
Ridiculous? I knew you were Satanic.
Is it that complicated to read something tongue in cheek? (Please no gay jokes)
will.15
06-26-12, 04:37 PM
I don't follow the bible too closely, but that is pretty standard for bible defenders of the academic type, every wacky quote in the Old Testament is attributed to mistranslating the original Hebrew.
will.15
06-26-12, 04:38 PM
I'm pretty sure Filmmaker1473 is... attempting satire.
King Kong was real.
wintertriangles
06-26-12, 04:40 PM
But of you truly believe those bones are fake and that despite carbon dating find fossils that are millions of years old, but you choose to believe that they're wrong.I've met a few people that say carbon dating is completely flawed. Not to mention this one pastor that says people like moses and abraham used to live hundreds of years because there was a water filter in the atmosphere that blocked the sun.
The Rodent
06-26-12, 04:45 PM
Wow... a conversation about religion (a subject matter that is based on peace and love for your fellow man)...
... who'd have though it would get heated...
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry013.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry021.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
will.15
06-26-12, 04:45 PM
There is some creation museum in the Ozarks or somewhere like that that has paintings of dinosaurs and cavemen in them
Yeah.....this thread is a recipe for disaster.
I don't wanna wade too far into most of this, but a few things stood out:
One point I'd always use to debate against people is this section of the bible:
"If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals." (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) there are many other lines in Deuteromy that say similar things about killing those of other religions. According to this section my parents should've killed me for becoming atheist and debating with them about religion
That's not at all what this section is telling us. First: it's not instructing the reader to do anything. It's a recounting of what happened. You might as well say a history textbook is telling you to storm the beaches of Normandy. Second: the context shows this is about a particular, thoroughly wicked city, not about all non-believers regardless of place or time. And it's not necessarily generalizing, either, because we have other examples (Soddom and Gommorah) of God specifically forewarning righteous people in an otherwise corrupt city. Think of it like Hiroshima, where we determined we had to drop the bomb, but still dropped leaflets beforehand. And third, large portions of the New Testament supersede the Old, though this fact isn't purely necessary to mention given the other two.
I'm all for analyzing the Bible, and I don't expect every atheist to be a Biblical scholar, but I'm consistently stunned at how many try to trot out some verse a rhetorical club even though they clearly haven't made a good faith attempt to understand it.
the excuse is that it's improperly translated.
It's really only an excuse if it's false. If it's true, then it's an explanation. Perhaps this is an argumentative crutch some believers lean on too often. Could be. But the opposite--dismissing it en masse because some people might invoke the idea lazily--isn't any better.
You'll find and excuse for everything that goes against your religion so there's no point in trying to sway you.
Couldn't you say the same thing about every skeptic? You cannot show any of them anything insane or seemingly inexplicable that they won't insist--without knowing anything about its circumstances--must have a purely rational, physical explanation. Is there any point trying to sway them?
planet news
06-26-12, 05:10 PM
Wow... a conversation about religion (a subject matter that is based on peace and love for your fellow man)...
... who'd have though it would get heated...How is it even heated though?
Yeah.....this thread is a recipe for disaster.I'm just glad Yoda is admin here, because I can hardly think of another forum that would not lock a thread like this from the first post.
A few more:
1) Just because most humans want purpose, probably because they're told they do, does not mean they need purpose. They give themselves purpose anyway.
We don't need it in a physical, survival sense, like food or water., but we need it in an intellectual sense. We expect it. Almost all of mankind has expected to find purpose, and most of it has, in some form. And I can't help but notice that all the other things that all of mankind has always wanted--food, water, sex, air--do, in fact, exist. That's not to say we always get what we want, but we're stunningly efficient at wanting things we can potentially get. If purpose is something we almost all have almost always wanted, and can't get at...it's probably the only thing that fits that description.
2) Not believing in any god doesn't = no meaning to life. That's like the number one mistake I hear.
(note to PN: if you want to reply to this, don't! Instead, we should just resurrect our other discussion about telos.)
It's not a mistake unless you define "meaning" in a completely circular way. If you define the "meaning" of life to be whatever meaning you decide your life has, then yeah, shocker: your life can have "meaning." But that's a tautology. For the word to have any--sorry, it's the only word--meaning, it has to refer to purpose outside of our own arbitrary choice. When you say you give your life meaning, you're already conceding the point. You may or may not then try to reappropriate the word to mean less than it did when the other person spoke it, but it won't be referring to the same thing.
First of all you don't know if animals have souls.
True!
Second of all, you think humans aren't trying to do what they can to improve their quality of life?
No, he's saying they do, and that that makes us different than animals.
Third, it's funny you don't even bring up anything about animals that isn't relevant to human behavior.
Except for the search to improve their quality of life, you mean? Anyway, whether he brings them up or not, there are some pretty huge differences. And whether or not you find those differences to be indicative of some higher metaphysical truth, the attempts to play down the gulf are often hilariously inadequate.
Well, cliches and whatnot, life is what you make it. Also your ideas about what other people believe are so close-minded it's funny. I'm dedicating my life to art, but since it's not for god it must be useless. It doesn't make sense that you need a god to justify your existence.
No, but you do need one to have any objective ground for morality, truth, logic, purpose, etc. You may not feel these things exist at all, but in my experience most skeptics try to have it both ways.
Then why do you pray?
I feel like this is one of those questions you could probably answer on your own if you wanted to, or weren't just going for pith. But I'll bite anyway:
There are many reasons to pray (and the existence of miracles does not, in fact, conflict with free will), but in short: prayer benefits the person praying. I pray because it is humbling, grounding, and is a useful symbol of faith and acceptance. Not because I think I can persuade God to give me something.
planet news
06-26-12, 05:27 PM
Instead, we should just resurrect our other discussion about telos.Do you have any idea where that is, because I'm not sure I was going down the same path I'm currently on.
Powderfinger
06-26-12, 05:29 PM
I remember having religious studies at boarding school with the brothers & I always argued about the miracles. I just couldn't understand it and it's based on faith really! One thing I always found troubling, the Bible was written years later after Jesus was died for our sins. I don't know if you did this classroom test? About 25 students would tell a short story to the student next to you, then the student would tell another student....what happen in the end? The first story was totally different to the last story! I was 11 years of age then. So, I understand why people are agnostic because people back in them days, probably had the same IQ as a 11 year old. Though, for me! It's faith!
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 05:33 PM
If there is no God, free will comes from us.
For a religious person, you sure have a racy avatar.
I can't like women?
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 05:35 PM
http://thedailygrind.robdamanii.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/StarTrekFacePalm.gif
I can't debate with extremists that completely disregard science, I end up getting frustrated because they'll just deny whatever you say. But of you truly believe those bones are fake and that despite carbon dating find fossils that are millions of years old, but you choose to believe that they're wrong. And you choose to disregard all the evidence of evolution. And you chose to believe that dinosaurs are man made, just for the reason to prove your religion, there's no point in debating. At this point you've chosen to block out anything in the contrary of what your bible says.
One point I'd always use to debate against people is this section of the bible:
"If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals." (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) there are many other lines in Deuteromy that say similar things about killing those of other religions. According to this section my parents should've killed me for becoming atheist and debating with them about religion, the excuse is that it's improperly translated. You'll find and excuse for everything that goes against your religion so there's no point in trying to sway you.
You don't want to debate because you (like most atheists) see science as the end all be all. I don't.
What is an atheist doing qutoing scripture? You don't even understand what that bible verse meant at all.
If there is no God, free will comes from us.
If there is no God, there is no free will. Atheism is virtually incompatible with the idea.
I say "virtually" because you can, technically speaking, construct a belief system that denies the existence of God but affirms the existence of some vague supernatural force of only moderate power, I suppose. But I haven't met anyone who thinks this. For most intents and purposes, atheists and materialists are the same people, and materialism makes free will utterly impossible. That another thing any atheist has to be willing to throw overboard along with theism.
planet news
06-26-12, 05:43 PM
You're wrong about Free Will Yoda. And I mean free will as it is commonly meant by most people. Where should I tell you how wrong you are?
Do you have any idea where that is, because I'm not sure I was going down the same path I'm currently on.
Dunno, but I can search the database all super-admin like, so just say the word if you want to go there, or if you just want to start anew somewhere (or start anew in the same thread, even), if you think you're probably in a different place now, anyway.
You're wrong about Free Will Yoda. And I mean free will as it is commonly meant by most people. Where should I tell you how wrong you are?
Probably here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=3558&page=7). Before you do, I will make my position clear (and I'll copy it into a reply in the other thread, if you elect to argue with it anyway): a materialistic universe is one in which only physical things exist. All physical things react to the forces set upon them and have no say in doing so, IE: a rock has to fall when you drop it. Our brains are made of physical matter. Therefore, our brains are subject to the same laws of cause and effect, and choice is an illusion.
Flimmaker1473
06-26-12, 05:48 PM
Well that's hilarious and false.
1) Just because most humans want purpose, probably because they're told they do, does not mean they need purpose. They give themselves purpose anyway.
2) Not believing in any god doesn't = no meaning to life. That's like the number one mistake I hear.
First of all you don't know if animals have souls. Second of all, you think humans aren't trying to do what they can to improve their quality of life? Third, it's funny you don't even bring up anything about animals that isn't relevant to human behavior.
Well, cliches and whatnot, life is what you make it. Also your ideas about what other people believe are so close-minded it's funny. I'm dedicating my life to art, but since it's not for god it must be useless. It doesn't make sense that you need a god to justify your existence.
Then why do you pray?
EDIT: :rolleyes: He's got jokes!
Is it that complicated to read something tongue in cheek? (Please no gay jokes)
So you are saying humans don't need purpose? Then why do people make films that we enjoy? There is always a reason behind something. Nothing is done for nothing.
Not beleving in God does mean there is no meaning in life. Christians believe that we are suppose to do everything we can to the glory of God. Atheists believe wre here just because and we anwser to no one. No offense but you are not even a good atheist.
Your right I don't know if animals have any souls. But I doubt they do. And humans do everything to improve their quality of life Which is what seprates us from animals.
My ideas are not closed minded. As a christan everything I do is for God. I am dedicated to racing and entertianment. But I am trying to glorify God too. Without that being an actor, painter, or an athlete has no meaning. You might as well do nothing.
I pray because I thank God. I ask God for forgiveness. I ask God for blessings. I ask God for protection of others and myself. I ask God for things for myself too. Prayer is a prviate conversation with God.
will.15
06-26-12, 05:51 PM
You can believe in God and not be a Creationist.
Science really has discredited it.
The Rodent
06-26-12, 05:51 PM
and choice is an illusion.
"Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand *why* you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now"
will.15
06-26-12, 05:55 PM
If there is no God, there is no free will. Atheism is virtually incompatible with the idea.
I say "virtually" because you can, technically speaking, construct a belief system that denies the existence of God but affirms the existence of some vague supernatural force of only moderate power, I suppose. But I haven't met anyone who thinks this. For most intents and purposes, atheists and materialists are the same people, and materialism makes free will utterly impossible. That another thing any atheist has to be willing to throw overboard along with theism.
I don't know what you are talking about.
How can there not be free will?
We decide what kind of person we will be with or without God.
I don't know what you are talking about.
How can there not be free will?
We decide what kind of person we will be with or without God.
Posted just above:
"a materialistic universe is one in which only physical things exist. All physical things react to the forces set upon them and have no say in doing so, IE: a rock has to fall when you drop it. Our brains are made of physical matter. Therefore, our brains are subject to the same laws of cause and effect, and choice is an illusion.
To believe in both materialism and free will you have to believe there's something magical about the physical matter that makes up our brains that exempts it from the same physical laws as all the other physical matter in the universe. If you can't, there's no such thing as free will.
I'll gladly hear any retorts, but I've been asserting this for years and I haven't heard one yet. The logic looks pretty definitive.
gandalf26
06-26-12, 06:24 PM
I am a dedicated Scientoloist.
Where is that option? eh
I belive in the galactic Overlord Xenu.
Within this mortal coil we are all "Thetans".
All hail Xenu!
wintertriangles
06-26-12, 06:25 PM
We don't need it in a physical, survival sense, like food or water., but we need it in an intellectual sense. We expect it. Almost all of mankind has expected to find purpose, and most of it has, in some form. And I can't help but notice that all the other things that all of mankind has always wanted--food, water, sex, air--do, in fact, exist. That's not to say we always get what we want, but we're stunningly efficient at wanting things we can potentially get. If purpose is something we almost all have almost always wanted, and can't get at...it's probably the only thing that fits that description.Need is different than expect. My point was that even if there is a god(s), purpose still comes from us since it is up to us to do something with our lives, and even then the purpose of what we've done is somewhat ambivalent. Purpose I don't think means striving for things just out of reach, unless the purpose of humanity as a whole is to prosper, but if so then you'd have to define prosper because I don't see that happening much outside art. But even art has to be narrowed down oh w/e
It's not a mistake unless you define "meaning" in a completely circular way. If you define the "meaning" of life to be whatever meaning you decide your life has, then yeah, shocker: your life can have "meaning." But that's a tautology. For the word to have any--sorry, it's the only word--meaning, it has to refer to purpose outside of our own arbitrary choice. When you say you give your life meaning, you're already conceding the point. You may or may not then try to reappropriate the word to mean less than it did when the other person spoke it, but it won't be referring to the same thing.Technically the definition of the word "meaning" was assigned so it's application is arbitrary but ok reverting back to the point that life has no meaning without god: using your own definition of purpose, life is a series of stretches towards a new level for the species wherein we aim for things out of reach but things that are merely wants. That sounds complicated.
No, he's saying they do, and that that makes us different than animals.
Except for the search to improve their quality of life, you mean? Anyway, whether he brings them up or not, there are some pretty huge differences. And whether or not you find those differences to be indicative of some higher metaphysical truth, the attempts to play down the gulf are often hilariously inadequate.Either I read it wrong or he worded it ambiguously. I don't find the differences indicative of anything other than we have more mental capacity but apparently not enough to grant certain other species their mental capacity. Not that I know the sources to which you refer, but the gulf is rather small from the big picture.
No, but you do need one to have any objective ground for morality, truth, logic, purpose, etc. You may not feel these things exist at all, but in my experience most skeptics try to have it both ways.I'm not disagreeing with this though.
There are many reasons to pray (and the existence of miracles does not, in fact, conflict with free will), but in short: prayer benefits the person praying. I pray because it is humbling, grounding, and is a useful symbol of faith and acceptance. Not because I think I can persuade God to give me something.I think this ties in here:a materialistic universe is one in which only physical things exist. All physical things react to the forces set upon them and have no say in doing so, IE: a rock has to fall when you drop it. Our brains are made of physical matter. Therefore, our brains are subject to the same laws of cause and effect, and choice is an illusion.And this:
I say "virtually" because you can, technically speaking, construct a belief system that denies the existence of God but affirms the existence of some vague supernatural force of only moderate power, I suppose. But I haven't met anyone who thinks this.I think this bit is actually more plausible than literally any other belief system ever. It establishes more of an equilibrium with the galactic possibility. Anyway, going off this, it can't be a materialistic universe, nor do I think you think so either, so miracles or free will, whatever card you want, is irrelevant to what would be a systematic chaos, and therein lies my understanding that religion is inherently inept. I'm not sure how praying makes you at one with yourself in any reality; I used to do it in grade school so I'm not coming from nowhere there.
donniedarko
06-26-12, 06:27 PM
You don't want to debate because you (like most atheists) see science as the end all be all. I don't.
What is an atheist doing qutoing scripture? You don't even understand what that bible verse meant at all.
I can't quote the old testement? I bet I've read more of the bible than you have. Oh an please tell me how I should understand killing without mercy. It has no inner meaning it means what it says. Who are you to put words in Gods mouth and say no he didn't mean what he said, he meant something completely opposite of that.
will.15
06-26-12, 06:28 PM
That is gobbly gook.
Free will means you decide or influence your fate, but we are not completely divorced from our environment or physical laws. There is no such things as absolutely completely free will if you believe in God or not. Ayn Rand certainly believed in free will (arguably to an absurd degree) and she was an atheist
That is gobbly gook.
How? I used clear English and went from one proposition to the next. Tell me which of the sentences is wrong.
Free will means you decide or influence your fate, but we are not completely divorced from our environment or physical laws. There is no such things as absolutely completely free will if you believe in God or not. Ayn Rand certainly believed in free will (arguably to an absurd degree) and she was an atheist
I'm not talking about "completely free will." And I'm not saying we lack free will because things around us can influence and inform our choices. I'm saying there must be no choice whatsoever, that physical laws must completely determine our actions. Our brains are made of the same kinds of molecules you'll find all over the universe, and none of those other molecules have any choice in how they react to things, right? So why our are brains any different?
You may not like the implications of this, but show me the flaw in it.
Sexy Celebrity
06-26-12, 06:51 PM
I say "virtually" because you can, technically speaking, construct a belief system that denies the existence of God but affirms the existence of some vague supernatural force of only moderate power, I suppose. But I haven't met anyone who thinks this.
Why not? I believe this is possible, actually -- that maybe there's not a "God" but there is something that is supernatural -- or at least it appears to be "supernatural" to us -- and it is certainly "alive" and at work in our lives, doing checks and balances on all of our lives and the world and the universe at large. It might even be where the idea of religion came from. Maybe we created our own belief systems from this larger system that is hard for us to understand.
This is actually the closest I can come to seeing and understanding supernatural things right now. 'Cause I actually do have a suspicion that there's something more to just... materialism. I don't know if it might mean that there is free will, though. There might not be. But still I wonder, what if? I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right, but basically I think the idea that some kind of extra dimension that is "in charge" of this one may very well exist and that it might even be working along with us sometimes, guiding us, directing us, moving us. I'm just not sure if it's ... loving. Others I've talked to about this have said they thought something larger is out there, too, and not necessarily a God we all think about, but something that wants us "to learn how to love." I don't think so gullibly. I think it's possible that we have a governing system above us that isn't so loving. That brings bad luck and misfortune on us when we don't do -- or aren't equipped -- to do what it wants us to do. Such as if we're a mistake in creation or something. I mean, maybe there's something larger at work and we're all just cogs in some grand design that's leading to something else, whatever that may be. Make any sense?
will.15
06-26-12, 06:55 PM
I don't know what you are saying.
If we make decisions, we have free will. If I decide I want to walk into traffic in the middle of the street, I am making a decision that may affect my life. I could get killed even if I walk across the street with a green light, but my fate isn't predetermined at the time I am born.
If I throw a rock, the rock will come down. That has nothing to do with free will. That is the law of gravity.
donniedarko
06-26-12, 06:58 PM
I don't understand the Christian concept of free will.
You don't have to believe in God but if you don't you bun in hell for an eternity.
That's like saying you have freedom of speech but if you say something the government doesn't like, life in prison.
Mysticalunicornfart
06-26-12, 07:00 PM
Arguing in a religion thread, whoda thunk it?!
I don't know what you are saying.
Hmmm. I'm putting it in extremely simple terms. I'll try again, though.
If we make decisions, we have free will. If I decide I want to walk into traffic in the middle of the street, I am making a decision that may affect my life. I could get killed even if I walk across the street with a green light, but my fate isn't predetermined at the time I am born
I'm saying that, if the physical is all there is, then you don't actually make decisions. Your choice was predetermined and the idea that you could have chosen the other way is an illusion.
If I throw a rock, the rock will come down. That has nothing to do with free will. That is the law of gravity.
Bingo. The rock has no say in it, right? It has to fall. So why is your brain different? Why is it that the physical forces that make the rock fall, or govern how any molecule reacts to any other molecule, do not apply to your brain? They're both physical matter.
Is your brain protected from the laws of cause and effect that govern all other matter in the universe? Do you think your brain is made up of special molecules that behave differently from all others and are exempt from these laws?
I don't understand the Christian concept of free will.
You don't have to believe in God but if you don't you bun in hell for an eternity.
That's like saying you have freedom of speech but if you say something the government doesn't like, life in prison.
The Cliff's Notes version is that you don't get sent to Hell and you don't literally burn; Hell is the name we give separation from God. A lot of people--Christian philosophers, writers, thinkers, and just random people on message boards--have answered this. So many, and so frequently, that it'd be virtually impossible for someone not to encounter the answers if they'd made any attempt to actually find them, or genuinely explore the issue.
So I guess my question is: are you actually trying to have a discussion, or are you just throwing out random arguments? Because I like talking about this, and I really like talking about it with people who make a good faith effort to understand the arguments and show genuine curiosity about why others think what they do. But I'm not particularly interested in arguing with someone who doesn't seem interested in the answers, or just wants to make the resident Christians jump through some very old hoops.
planet news
06-26-12, 07:19 PM
That is gobbly gook.It's not 'gob-bly gook.' It's one word: gob-ble-dee-gook. Gobbledygook.
The Rodent
06-26-12, 07:21 PM
Say that again PN, I can't understand you, you're speaking gribbledygloop.
If you die and you don't believe in God/Christ, then you're dead just as atheists believe. No difference If you believe or have faith or have no exposure to some form of honest teachings from the Book, then you die, awaiting a resurrection for allegedly eternal life or a first chance. I think that's enough to get me into trouble with some other "Christians", so I won't mention the difference between hell and hellfire and to what each may apply. After all, I'm only a man and can't presume to know what's on God's Mind. I can read, study and pray. That can get you so far, at least in coming to peace with yourself and others, but it can't make you God. I mean, I know I'm stubborn and think I'm always right, but even I can tell the difference.
will.15
06-26-12, 08:21 PM
A rock is an inanimate object and has no will whatsoever.
And where is your "will" if not inside your physical mind, where it's subject to the same physical laws as the rock?
planet news
06-26-12, 08:51 PM
All that needs to be said is this: no law constituting an object can, at the same time, be exhaustive of the material of the object.
This is a uniquely atheist position, because it is formulated under the idea that there is no such thing as totality, which means there can be no 'enclosure' on what is, which means that nothing can be thought to be outside being. It follows that there can be no 'enclosure' on anything whatsoever, no stopping point at which some interplay of cause and effect can fully determine being.
will.15
06-26-12, 08:59 PM
I have more options than a rock.
This is a discussion about whether or not that's true; no purpose is served by asserting it.
If you say you have more options than a rock, then I want to know what part of your physical mind is exempt from cause and effect in a way that the rock is not? What molecules in your brain operate independent of the rules that govern all the other molecules in the universe?
will.15
06-26-12, 09:10 PM
I am governed by the laws of the uiniverse. That is true if God exists or not.
The rock cannot decide how it will live its life. I can.
And that decision comes from your physical brain, right? So how does your brain get to pick and choose how the matter inside itself reacts to things? Why can the molecules in your brain choose to go one way or another, but the rock can't? Are they special molecules, immune from causality?
And please, don't reply with another restatement of your claim like "I have more options" or "I can [decide]." I'm asking you to explain how this can be possible; repeating your position doesn't do that.
will.15
06-26-12, 09:22 PM
So what are you saying, because I can decide, I have free will, that is proof God exists?
That wasn't the argument, it was atheists don't believe there is free will, that man is helpless to decide his fate.
planet news
06-26-12, 09:23 PM
Did you get my pm?
So what are you saying, because I can decide, I have free will, that is proof God exists?
No. I'm saying you can't be a materialist (IE: an atheist, for almost all intents and purposes) and believe in free will.
That wasn't the argument, it was atheists don't believe there is free will, that man is helpless to decide his fate.
No, it was that they can't reconcile their atheism with their belief in free will. Technically they can decide to believe all sorts of contradictory things if they want. But they can't actually reconcile the two.
Did you get my pm?
Yup, just replied.
will.15
06-26-12, 09:40 PM
That is a relief. For a second there I thought he PM'd me.
Decent joke. I'll give it 3.5. "Good joke. Everybody laugh."
What about the rest, though? Can you give me some reason the physical matter in your brain is not subject to causality, like all other physical matter?
will.15
06-26-12, 09:51 PM
My brain is too complex for simple casualty.
Gabriella Lynn
06-26-12, 09:51 PM
To my atheism is a sad way to live. You are basically going through the day for no reason. Some people need science for everything (hell there is a religion called christian science). Seeing isn't believing. It is about faith.
Ok well I just want to say that I don't agree with you on that at all. I love my life, I am happy and I don't feel stressed because I am living the way I want to. All my family and friends told me not to be with my boyfriend but he has made my life richer than any of them have. A lot of them didn't want me to be with him because he's atheist. But he's done so much for me and he is good to me. I live for myself and him, what's wrong with that? How is that a sad life and I have no reason?
Gabriella Lynn
06-26-12, 09:53 PM
That isn't circular logic. If there is no God, then what is the point of living? What value does life have? Why are we here? I don't don't believe we are here for no reason.
I just don't get this? What is the point of living for god?
My brain is too complex for simple casualty.
So your position is that when some molecules are placed next to certain other types of molecules, the laws of causality break down? And this only happens inside the human brain? And that even though causality itself has broken down, you can "steer" what the molecules do?
Powderfinger
06-26-12, 10:42 PM
Decent joke. I'll give it 3.5. "Good joke. Everybody laugh."
lol! :D
planet news
06-26-12, 10:53 PM
My brain is too complex for simple casualty.What your brain seems not complex enough for is to recognize that, in the difficult task of rehabilitating of free will, your current line of argument -- if one can call it that -- is a logical dead end.
will.15
06-26-12, 11:01 PM
so your position is that when some molecules are placed next to certain other types of molecules, the laws of causality break down? And this only happens inside the human brain? and that even though causality itself has broken down, you can "steer" what the molecules do?
You're not arguing atheists cannot believe in free will. You are saying free will cannot exist in a world without God.
But I am not an atheist. I am agnostic and don't worry about how it is possible man has free will. I even think it is possible a higher power created the universe. What I reject is there is a god in the here and now that cares what we do and that there is a hereafter. There might be, but I think the odds are when we die, that's it.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 04:45 AM
I can't quote the old testement? I bet I've read more of the bible than you have. Oh an please tell me how I should understand killing without mercy. It has no inner meaning it means what it says. Who are you to put words in Gods mouth and say no he didn't mean what he said, he meant something completely opposite of that.
I just don't think people who don't believe it have a right to quote it. They will never ever be able to grasp what it means. And you of course just proved that. I am not going to get into "who has read the bible more". But I doubt it.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 04:47 AM
Ok well I just want to say that I don't agree with you on that at all. I love my life, I am happy and I don't feel stressed because I am living the way I want to. All my family and friends told me not to be with my boyfriend but he has made my life richer than any of them have. A lot of them didn't want me to be with him because he's atheist. But he's done so much for me and he is good to me. I live for myself and him, what's wrong with that? How is that a sad life and I have no reason?
I didn't say all atheist are stressed out and sad. I bet most all. And I bet deep down all are. Some people do however don't care if life has meaning or not. Most of those people hurt the people around them.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 04:49 AM
I just don't get this? What is the point of living for god?
Because he put us here. He had his son die on the cross for our sins. He gives us everything we have. Food, shelter, money, happiness. And for that I thank him and do everything for him. I go through my life knowing that God has a plan for me. Whenever the chips are down I remember that. I know I am not here just by coincidence.
I believe in Science... in Math.
Gabriella Lynn
06-27-12, 11:45 AM
I didn't say all atheist are stressed out and sad. I bet most all. And I bet deep down all are. Some people do however don't care if life has meaning or not. Most of those people hurt the people around them.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Judging someone's happiness because they don't believe in the same thing as you is crazy. It really is crazy, can you tell everytime you interact with someone whether they are unhappy because they are atheist or not? Can you tell everytime someone is happy that they have god with them? Do you think to yourself " Oh, That person is depressed because they don't have god in their life!" Majority of people that are atheist grew up with a religious background, I just named like five different churches I went to and how I didn't find what I was looking for there. I stopped going to church 2 years ago and your telling me that the people that are in my life now, the atheists that surround me, are unhappy because they chose not to have god in their lives like their parents?
Gabriella Lynn
06-27-12, 11:51 AM
Because he put us here. He had his son die on the cross for our sins. He gives us everything we have. Food, shelter, money, happiness. And for that I thank him and do everything for him. I go through my life knowing that God has a plan for me. Whenever the chips are down I remember that. I know I am not here just by coincidence.
Ok, if your saying that you aren't here by coincidence, then why do you think atheists are? If he made everything then why did he make non believers? To allow us to have a choice? You know there are other religions, older than Christianity that say the same types of things?
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
Powderfinger
06-27-12, 12:16 PM
The apocalyptic is happening now! lol! Just kidding lol! :D I am, I truly am. I thought I got cheesed off lol! :D Someone wrote about doing this king a thread, though I can't remember who wrote it? I'm like a 10 year old, I am!! :o
donniedarko
06-27-12, 01:48 PM
Because he put us here. He had his son die on the cross for our sins. He gives us everything we have. Food, shelter, money, happiness. And for that I thank him and do everything for him. I go through my life knowing that God has a plan for me. Whenever the chips are down I remember that. I know I am not here just by coincidence.
Why couldn't he give that to the kids in Africa?
Why couldn't he give that to the kids in Africa?
If these kinds of sophomoric arguments are the extent of your inquiry, then I don't think you've been looking very hard. Because there's a couple of thousand years of literature about it (some of it quite accessible) and your questions make me think you don't care to so much as glance at it. As does the fact that you seem to just ignore corrections and serious replies.
You're not arguing atheists cannot believe in free will. You are saying free will cannot exist in a world without God.
You say this like it's news, but that was the very first thing I said (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=822204).
Also, it should be obvious that saying someone "can't" believe something means they can't do so rationally. Obviously people can technically believe in any ridiculous thing they want.
But I am not an atheist.
Okay, but you've been arguing this whole time that you don't need to invoke God for free will. Have I perhaps managed to persuade you otherwise?
I am agnostic and don't worry about how it is possible man has free will. I even think it is possible a higher power created the universe. What I reject is there is a god in the here and now that cares what we do and that there is a hereafter. There might be, but I think the odds are when we die, that's it.
Okay, but to be clear: it's not that you can keep the idea of free will if you merely think a higher power is possible. It's a clear prerequisite. If you're not sure that God/the supernatural exists, then you can't be sure that free will exists, either. And if you decide that free will exists, it necessitates that you believe in some corresponding supernatural force to make it possible.
You don't have to come a decision on either, of course. But I mention it because based on everything else you've said it sounds like you very much believe in free will, and there'd be a logical disconnect if you believed in free will but only acknowledged the mere possibility of God.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 02:45 PM
If these kinds of sophomoric arguments are the extent of your inquiry, then I don't think you've been looking very hard. Because there's a couple of thousand years of literature about it (some of it quite accessible) and your questions make me think you don't care to so much as glance at it. As does the fact that you seem to just ignore corrections and serious replies.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_distribution.png
I don't see how my point is being Sophomoric, my point was that Filmmaker said that God gives everything, food, shelter, happiness, ect. So my question was why doesn't God do that for Africa with it being one of the poorest areas with highest levels of poverty, hunger, homelessness and pretty much lowest ranked in everything. Yet some places in Africa have over 90% of the population being Christian as shown in the image above. So why don't they deserve the same food, shelter, an happiness as filmmaker gets, if it truly is God who is giving it.
As far as ignoring responses and corrections, the only response I recall ignoring is filmmaker saying that I shouldn't be quoting the bible because understand it, yet he doesn't tell me how I misinterpret it. But I haven't read through everything so I'll go back right now an look through who people who have challenged me and I haven't replied to.
Edit: Picture Isn't working but here's the link I got it from
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country#_
I don't feel you're making a good faith effort to understand what he's saying. I don't even agree with all of it, but sheesh, when he says God "gives" us food and shelter, I think it's pretty obvious he's saying that we live in a world that contains these things, not that nobody ever wants for any of it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems this way to me.
I'm not even saying that's a good argument, mind you! It definitely isn't. But I'm a believer in the idea that, if you actually want to argue with someone, you shouldn't go out of your way to try to interpret what they say in the worst possible light. His statement could be literal, or it could be general; so why interpret it in the literal way, which makes less sense? The only reason to do that would be if one's priority were to make a fool of him, or win an argument, rather than get at the truth.
I'll gladly take you at your word that you're not ignoring anything, though. My mistake. It's easy to forget how fast the posts can pile up.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 02:55 PM
The Cliff's Notes version is that you don't get sent to Hell and you don't literally burn; Hell is the name we give separation from God. A lot of people--Christian philosophers, writers, thinkers, and just random people on message boards--have answered this. So many, and so frequently, that it'd be virtually impossible for someone not to encounter the answers if they'd made any attempt to actually find them, or genuinely explore the issue.
So I guess my question is: are you actually trying to have a discussion, or are you just throwing out random arguments? Because I like talking about this, and I really like talking about it with people who make a good faith effort to understand the arguments and show genuine curiosity about why others think what they do. But I'm not particularly interested in arguing with someone who doesn't seem interested in the answers, or just wants to make the resident Christians jump through some very old hoops.
I'm going from NIV which specifically says that if you don't acknowledge Jesus you are not worthy of him. And this Quote:
Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and UNBELIEVING and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.".
In John 3:16 it explains that only believers go to heaven.
So I take this as non believers go to hell, unless this once agin just God talking in Poetry and not litirelly meaning what he tells the prophets.
And as far as random arguments, I just brought that up because you were all on the discussion of free will so I put in my thoughts about it.
I'm going from NIV which specifically says that if you don't acknowledge Jesus you are not worthy of him.
That sounds objectionable to you? That if people won't even recognize God as God, they aren't worthy of Him? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
And this Quote:
Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and UNBELIEVING and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.".
In John 3:16 it explains that only believers go to heaven.
So I take this as non believers go to hell, unless this once agin just God talking in Poetry and not litirelly meaning what he tells the prophets.
Well yeah, of course it's poetry. You've read parts of Revelation, right? It's probably the most blatantly symbolic book in the Bible. I can get how some people might use "it's just a symbol" as a crutch, but there's no question about it here.
That said, one of the crucial distinctions is between being "sent" somewhere and actively choosing it. If free will is to really be respected, it means giving people even the choice to permanently turn away from God if they really want to. And if we are created by God to be happiest with Him (a logical conclusion once you posit a God, I hope you'll agree), then it stands to reason that this separation will be a pretty terrible thing, and that metaphors about burning and torment make for an appropriate description. Think of God like any source of heat or light: if you actively decide to distance yourself from it, it'll be colder and darker. It would be gibberish to say you want to be away from it AND still feel the effects of being close to it.
If you'd like to read a conception of what a compassionate Hell might look like, you'll probably do no better than C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. There's a lot of good thought there.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 03:18 PM
Replying to Yoda about Deuteromy verse and loose translations:
"That's not at all what this section is telling us. First: it's not instructing the reader to do anything. It's a recounting of what happened. You might as well say a history textbook is telling you to storm the beaches of Normandy. Second: the context shows this is about a particular, thoroughly wicked city, not about all non-believers regardless of place or time. And it's not necessarily generalizing, either, because we have other examples (Soddom and Gommorah) of God specifically forewarning righteous people in an otherwise corrupt city. Think of it like Hiroshima, where we determined we had to drop the bomb, but still dropped leaflets beforehand. And third, large portions of the New Testament supersede the Old, though this fact isn't purely necessary to mention given the other two."
Well I'm reading NIV as I'm replying and it specifically says that if your own mother, father, wife, ect try to sway you away then you shall kill them showing no mercy. And With the city worshiping another god, it never says anything specific per city, It says if one sees a town worshipping false idols burn it and everyone inside including the animals. It seems very general. I also hear that the new testement does surpass the old one, but what did Gid change his mind. Was a good portion of the things in old testement just a mistake by God who knows everything? Because a lot of things did change in the transition between old to new. Passover, Yom Kipur, and Roshashana, well you don't have to worry about that anymore, just replace it with other days of worship. Shabbat which is a HUGE part of the old testement was just come rely surpassed. Kosher was completely erased (yes I know, after Jesus came we don't have to sacrifice anymore) but really between old and new testement peretty much everything changed. Making it seem like it was two completely different Gods writing each half.
"I'm all for analyzing the Bible, and I don't expect every atheist to be a Biblical scholar, but I'm consistently stunned at how many try to trot out some verse a rhetorical club even though they clearly haven't made a good faith attempt to understand it."
I have, I've talked to two rabbis, a really religious Jewish man who's read te old testement cover to cover multiple times, and the son of a pastor about this verse, the religious man actually told me that it was never written there, everyone else said it was jut poorly translated. Actually one of them did say it was just the time period, but God still should've had morals.
"It's really only an excuse if it's false. If it's true, then it's an explanation. Perhaps this is an argumentative crutch some believers lean on too often. Could be. But the opposite--dismissing it en masse because some people might invoke the idea lazily--isn't any better."
I just don't think people have the right to say that's not what it actually said, when they've never seen the original
"Couldn't you say the same thing about every skeptic? You cannot show any of them anything insane or seemingly inexplicable that they won't insist--without knowing anything about its circumstances--must have a purely rational, physical explanation. Is there any point trying to sway them?"
I guess you could say that about any skeptic, I agree with you there.
And about trying to sway, is there any point of (I forget what they're called but the Christians that Come to your house) trying to sway me? I mean they come in dozens, comin to my house wanting me to be enlightened. So I guess I'm doing it for the same Reason.
TheUsualSuspect
06-27-12, 03:20 PM
I didn't say all atheist are stressed out and sad. I bet most all. And I bet deep down all are. Some people do however don't care if life has meaning or not. Most of those people hurt the people around them.
I just don't think people who don't believe it have a right to quote it. They will never ever be able to grasp what it means. And you of course just proved that. I am not going to get into "who has read the bible more". But I doubt it.
Two of the most ridiculous things I have read here.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 03:24 PM
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Judging someone's happiness because they don't believe in the same thing as you is crazy. It really is crazy, can you tell everytime you interact with someone whether they are unhappy because they are atheist or not? Can you tell everytime someone is happy that they have god with them? Do you think to yourself " Oh, That person is depressed because they don't have god in their life!" Majority of people that are atheist grew up with a religious background, I just named like five different churches I went to and how I didn't find what I was looking for there. I stopped going to church 2 years ago and your telling me that the people that are in my life now, the atheists that surround me, are unhappy because they chose not to have god in their lives like their parents?
I am not saying that all atheists are unhappy. But that in reality an atheist feels that life has no real meaning. That isn't complete happiness to me.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 03:25 PM
Ok, if your saying that you aren't here by coincidence, then why do you think atheists are? If he made everything then why did he make non believers? To allow us to have a choice? You know there are other religions, older than Christianity that say the same types of things?
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
No human being is here by coincidence. God gave us free will. Therefore people can believe what ever they want to believe.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 03:26 PM
Why couldn't he give that to the kids in Africa?
You see I can't debate with someone who isn't going to be serious. Sorry.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 03:27 PM
Two of the most ridiculous things I have read here.
I think everything that atheists and agnostics posters have posted in this thread are the more ridiculous things I have read on here.
Why is it so ridiculous? Atheist don't believe in God or the bible. So why quote something you don't believe in? They don't have that right IMO. They can't be swayed so they can't grasp what it means.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 03:29 PM
That sounds objectionable to you? That if people won't even recognize God as God, they aren't worthy of Him? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
But then how is that free will?
Well yeah, of course it's poetry. You've read parts of Revelation, right? It's probably the most blatantly symbolic book in the Bible. I can get how some people might use "it's just a symbol" as a crutch, but there's no question about it here.
I will agree that Revelation is one that's tought to quote because it's not really black and white and uses symbols more then actual figures. But then you can say that everything in the bible is poetry
That said, one of the crucial distinctions is between being "sent" somewhere and actively choosing it. If free will is to really be respected, it means giving people even the choice to permanently turn away from God if they really want to. And if we are created by God to be happiest with Him (a logical conclusion once you posit a God, I hope you'll agree), then it stands to reason that this separation will be a pretty terrible thing, and that metaphors about burning and torment make for an appropriate description. Think of God like any source of heat or light: if you actively decide to distance yourself from it, it'll be colder and darker. It would be gibberish to say you want to be away from it AND still feel the effects of being close to it.
If you'd like to read a conception of what a compassionate Hell might look like, you'll probably do no better than C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. There's a lot of good thought there.
Well if God offers one book as the proof that he exists, that we are all supposed to believe, that just doesn't seem like enough to say that if you don't believe in this you suffer for eternity. And as in terms of the light, yes If you see the light is there then it's different than a book saying there's a light an if you want the effects of it then get your head dipped under water and every Sunday go to a building and preach and ask for forgiveness for your pure existence.
Now I have a question Yoda,
Why is it that Christianity is correct? What separates it from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Bhuddism, ect. What makes it more realistic. And what about it is more believable than the listed religions?
Why is it so ridiculous? Atheist don't believe in God or the bible. So why quote something you don't believe in? They don't have that right IMO. They can't be swayed so they can't grasp what it means.
You're saying two different things here. The first thing--that they can't quote what they don't believe in--is definitely wrong. I say that as a believing Christian. They can absolutely quote it; they can do so in the same way you can quote any book or religious text you disagree in. Anyone can analyze and question it.
The second thing you're saying, however--that by not believing in, they won't be genuinely open to it or grasp what it means--is more reasonable. Still a bit of a generalization, but that's the case you probably should have made from the beginning.
I'm willing to assume that this comment--like the comment about atheists and happiness--is probably just the result of some rhetorical sloppiness. But how you phrase these things matters. You wouldn't be facing so much disagreement if you'd said something like "I don't think you can objectively judge individual parts of the Bible if you've already decided you don't believe in it." Saying atheists have no "right" to quote it at all, though, is a whole different idea.
I am not saying that all atheists are unhappy. But that in reality an atheist feels that life has no real meaning. That isn't complete happiness to me.
Who are you to dictate what happiness means to someone else? There are unhappy Christians, unhappy atheists....I don't think "true happiness" only exists for Christians. That's awfully narrow minded.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 03:47 PM
I think everything that atheists and agnostics posters have posted in this thread are the more ridiculous things I have read on here.
Why is it so ridiculous? Atheist don't believe in God or the bible. So why quote something you don't believe in? They don't have that right IMO. They can't be swayed so they can't grasp what it means.
That is so unbelievably stupid I can't even explain it. It's a book, it's a book sold in stores, in fact it's a book that I own. So just because I do t believe in it means I dont have a right to quote it on a Movieforums site, are you serious?
planet news
06-27-12, 03:51 PM
Who are you to dictate what happiness means to someone else? There are unhappy Christians, unhappy atheists....I don't think "true happiness" only exists for Christians. That's awfully narrow minded.Well, I think there definitely is a sense in which an atheist has trouble establishing 'meaning' in the same way that religious people can.
This is only because religions don't really seek to inquire about the nature of the world. They have a text which they are told they can immediately interpret. It's predicated on a by-fiat transcendent authority that simply declares meaning for them.
The fact that it's 'easy' for them, motivates them to look down on those who attempt to seek its possibility in the immanent world, when it's clear to the atheist that an immanent conception of meaning is all that much more meaningful, because its possibility is already guaranteed by reality.
will.15
06-27-12, 03:52 PM
You say this like it's news, but that was the very first thing I said (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=822204).
Also, it should be obvious that saying someone "can't" believe something means they can't do so rationally. Obviously people can technically believe in any ridiculous thing they want.
Okay, but you've been arguing this whole time that you don't need to invoke God for free will. Have I perhaps managed to persuade you otherwise?
Okay, but to be clear: it's not that you can keep the idea of free will if you merely think a higher power is possible. It's a clear prerequisite. If you're not sure that God/the supernatural exists, then you can't be sure that free will exists, either. And if you decide that free will exists, it necessitates that you believe in some corresponding supernatural force to make it possible.
You don't have to come a decision on either, of course. But I mention it because based on everything else you've said it sounds like you very much believe in free will, and there'd be a logical disconnect if you believed in free will but only acknowledged the mere possibility of God.
Free will is no more a mystery than life. I think even animals to some extent have free will. Not everything an individual animal does is motivated by instinct.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 04:00 PM
You're saying two different things here. The first thing--that they can't quote what they don't believe in--is definitely wrong. I say that as a believing Christian. They can absolutely quote it; they can do so in the same way you can quote any book or religious text you disagree in. Anyone can analyze and question it.
The second thing you're saying, however--that by not believing in, they won't be genuinely open to it or grasp what it means--is more reasonable. Still a bit of a generalization, but that's the case you probably should have made from the beginning.
I'm willing to assume that this comment--like the comment about atheists and happiness--is probably just the result of some rhetorical sloppiness. But how you phrase these things matters. You wouldn't be facing so much disagreement if you'd said something like "I don't think you can objectively judge individual parts of the Bible if you've already decided you don't believe in it." Saying atheists have no "right" to quote it at all, though, is a whole different idea.
When an atheist quote scripture they do it for negative reasons. Scripture is not meant for that. That is why I say atheists shouldn't quote it. Some atheists however you said can analyze it and see it for what truly is.
As for atheists not being able to fully grasp scripture. That is what I am basically saying. An atheist has a set of beliefs. They are not going to read something in the bible objectively.
Flimmaker1473
06-27-12, 04:01 PM
That is so unbelievably stupid I can't even explain it. It's a book, it's a book sold in stores, in fact it's a book that I own. So just because I do t believe in it means I dont have a right to quote it on a Movieforums site, are you serious?
Of course you would say that. You are an atheist. You don't believe in God or anything the bible says. So tell me how are you going to read the bible and be objective? You are not going to be able to be objective. You are so weak in arguments that it is funny.
planet news
06-27-12, 04:12 PM
What do you mean by being objective? You read in some context. The closest thing to a neutral context is something like appealing to an encyclopedia, and even that is not really neutral.
Especially since so much of the bible supposedly is not meant to be taken 'at face value,' it's pretty opaque what you mean by objective.
The argument isn't weak at all. It's a text. What do you think constitutes the meaning of a text?
will.15
06-27-12, 04:15 PM
He is not being objective? You think dinosaurs could be man made, they didn't actually exist.
Powderfinger
06-27-12, 04:54 PM
I feel like I'm at Boarding School again lol! :D If anyway gets out of hand, there will be 6 cuts of the cane...lol! :D
Well, I think there definitely is a sense in which an atheist has trouble establishing 'meaning' in the same way that religious people can.
This is only because religions don't really seek to inquire about the nature of the world. They have a text which they are told they can immediately interpret. It's predicated on a by-fiat transcendent authority that simply declares meaning for them.
The fact that it's 'easy' for them, motivates them to look down on those who attempt to seek its possibility in the immanent world, when it's clear to the atheist that an immanent conception of meaning is all that much more meaningful, because its possibility is already guaranteed by reality.
I'm not an expert on many religions, but I know and read many different "religious" texts. If the "religious" are able to "interpret" their books "by fiat", then why are there so many different interpretations of almost every single quote of almost every text?
I understand that some "Christians", for example, look down on "non-believers", but I don't see that as especially restricted to "Christians" or the religious in general. I may be wrong (HA!), but I think a lot of atheists look down on "religious types" as being stupid cavemen with no concept of reality, history or science. Also, just because one wants to understand the scientific world in the context of some sort of faith does not make them "religious", unless you believe that atheists do not have their own forms of faith.
P.S.- Everybody needs to take a break and watch Elmer Gantry right about now. :cool:
planet news
06-27-12, 05:24 PM
You quoted me, but nothing you said in that post seems to have anything to do with what I wrote, so I don't really know what to say. If anything I was defending the religious contention that they have a monopoly on meaning. I went on to add that it's possible that religious-like meaning can still be uncovered without religion, but that it's more difficult. This difficulty is the source for Filmmaker's intuition that atheists live meaningless lives.
Skepsis93
06-27-12, 06:31 PM
Of course you would say that. You are an atheist. You don't believe in God or anything the bible says. So tell me how are you going to read the bible and be objective? You are not going to be able to be objective. You are so weak in arguments that it is funny.
I say that I believe in whatever has the most convincing argument, so in theory, yes, I would be open to believing in a so-called God were the evidence ever to point to such a thing. The bible is another matter entirely. You don't need to be objective to see the contradictions; the violence and intolerance that the bible preaches.
Everything you're saying - "God gave us free will"; "He had his son die on the cross for our sins"; "He gives us everything we have" - these are just catchphrases. We've heard it all before. Your argument isn't weak - it's not an argument at all. Tell us why. What actually drives your belief? It's very hard to take you seriously if you're just going to preach.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 07:35 PM
Of course you would say that. You are an atheist. You don't believe in God or anything the bible says. So tell me how are you going to read the bible and be objective? You are not going to be able to be objective. You are so weak in arguments that it is funny.
Atleast I'm putting up on an argument. Your just saying some BS with no proof
Dinosaurs aren't real- ok give me some evidencce
Carbon dating is fake- give me some evidence
God is real- give me some evidence
You don't understand the verse- tell me how you interpret it
Atheists arent happy- do you have a stat to prove that
I realize this is really fresh and new for some of you, but this forum is full of threads where similar arguments have been carried on for 12 years. I suppose this may be one, but it was dormant for a very long time. This doesn't help anybody with their questions or lack of answers though.
As far as the last post goes, there is no "evidence". He can't provide any. Both of you are acting very emotionally right now, but believe it or not, it's not personal. I've been looking at my cats today, and I have to say that I believe they are just as emotional. Others tell me, no, they're just reacting to food, shelter, comfort and the lack thereof. I ask them then, what makes that different than anything we do, other than the spoken language to communicate our unhappiness? Then, I hear my cats' cry out for attention and I say to myself, not a thing.
I don't know; am I rambling or addressing some of the topics addressed recently in this thread? Peace.
donniedarko
06-27-12, 08:01 PM
Nice little quote I found while looking for a stat on percentages of suicides per different religions
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one"
-George Bernard Shaw(Irish literary Critic, Playwright and Essayist. 1925 Nobel Prize for Literature, 1856-1950)
That's pretty good, donnie. You just summarized my entire bs point of view. Of course, I love Shaw since he and I are/were both drunkards.
Powderfinger
06-27-12, 08:04 PM
looking for a stat on percentages of suicides per different religions
Young Japanese killed themselves more anyone else. They believe from family pressure to succeed.
TheUsualSuspect
06-27-12, 08:21 PM
Filmmaker, until you start talking normal and making sense, then I will respond. What you are saying now, is utterly ridiculous.
I have to leave this thread, seriously. This guy is making no sense.
Gabriella Lynn
06-27-12, 09:55 PM
I am not saying that all atheists are unhappy. But that in reality an atheist feels that life has no real meaning. That isn't complete happiness to me.
That isn't true either though! The theme that life has no real meaning can be anyone! No matter what religion they hold. It's disappointing that you really think that.
If they all thought that life had no meaning, then a majority of them would commit suicide. If that is really what you think then why would so many atheists that feel their life has no meaning still be alive?
Maybe our live's are materialistic or all about the physical part, but that's a meaning to carry on life no matter how you look at it.
If god is what give's you means to live, then why not die and be with him? I am not telling you to commit suicide either, I am simply saying that god isn't the only thing that people live for a lot of times. Because so many people have family and friends also and I would think that those reasons alone can be big on why people have meaning to their lives.
Gabriella Lynn
06-27-12, 10:01 PM
I don't feel you're making a good faith effort to understand what he's saying. I don't even agree with all of it, but sheesh, when he says God "gives" us food and shelter, I think it's pretty obvious he's saying that we live in a world that contains these things, not that nobody ever wants for any of it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems this way to me.
I'm not even saying that's a good argument, mind you! It definitely isn't. But I'm a believer in the idea that, if you actually want to argue with someone, you shouldn't go out of your way to try to interpret what they say in the worst possible light. His statement could be literal, or it could be general; so why interpret it in the literal way, which makes less sense? The only reason to do that would be if one's priority were to make a fool of him, or win an argument, rather than get at the truth.
I'll gladly take you at your word that you're not ignoring anything, though. My mistake. It's easy to forget how fast the posts can pile up.
Yoda you make sense though, my boyfriend loves having even a couple minute post convo's with you because you both can be practical and see both side's.
Gabriella Lynn
06-27-12, 10:06 PM
I think everything that atheists and agnostics posters have posted in this thread are the more ridiculous things I have read on here.
Why is it so ridiculous? Atheist don't believe in God or the bible. So why quote something you don't believe in? They don't have that right IMO. They can't be swayed so they can't grasp what it means.
I'm pretty sure that most of the atheist's in this thread and possibly some of the religious people think that what you say is ridiculous or not good arguments either.
Just because we don't believe in god doesn't mean we can't quote him or the bible. Those two things are probably the main reasons most don't believe.
Just thinking about the bible, it's hard for me to think that every word is correct because when you translate it over and over again from dying languages or words, it's hard to know what is true and what isn't.
You say you think we're ridiculous because you can't sway us to believe what you believe but have you ever thought to see our side of things? I know I grew up on your side, so I know what it's like leading the life with god, it's the same now as it was then.
Gabriella Lynn
06-27-12, 10:09 PM
"I don't think you can objectively judge individual parts of the Bible if you've already decided you don't believe in it." .
I agree with this, reading the bible already knowing you will disagree with every verse is ignorant because you aren't keeping an open mind.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 12:47 AM
I am washing my hands of this discussion. It is a dead end debate. Both sides have strong beliefs and will not objectively look at the others point of view (especially the atheists). It is useless discussing religion.
Gabriella Lynn
06-28-12, 12:49 AM
This is James again, I have been working a lot but I am goin to respond to those who quoted my post, How would the Earth , everything on it just be created out of nothing? Don't you think that is just to convenient? Is it not also too convenient that someone who supposedly looks like us suddenly decided to create us and everything around us? That is just as feasible as any other thought or believe, just like the big bang, or another religions thoughts, or any other creationism theory, hell, even the recent movie prometheous offered something just as possible, a being created us in that as well.
That isn't circular logic. If there is no God, then what is the point of living? What value does life have? Why are we here? I don't don't believe we are here for no reason.
Before you can tell me that your thoughts or believes are correct, tell me why EVERY other one is incorrect, and then analyze why others are wrong, and that is how I have come to the conclusion that your logic is circular. No atheist will tell you that you have no place on earth because of your beliefs, so why is it that you think that it is correct to assume that atheists have no place? Not to mention every other religion who doesn't believe in your god. I also believe that we are here for a reason, to fulfill our lives and live to the best of our ability, and to continue to seek the answers and learn, thus passing on knowledge. I could ask you the same question, if you already know that we are because a god placed us here, why are we here, and to what goal or aim. Again, circular. Atheists use science and theories and that is what makes them skeptics. Christians or anyone who is in a religion, have faith. This does make most of us skeptics, I agree. In life how is it that we learn anything? From a young age up? We ask questions, and we find answers, sometimes opinions and sometimes facts, but even then we have to ask more questions to find the facts or do our own research. There are many reasons to pray (and the existence of miracles does not, in fact, conflict with free will), but in short: prayer benefits the person praying. I pray because it is humbling, grounding, and is a useful symbol of faith and acceptance. Not because I think I can persuade God to give me something. Praying is quite simply just that, a self reminding promise or reminder that you are thankful or proud for the things you have. Now I am not against prayer, because it reminds people that they are grateful for the things they have, and I believe a person can pray without having a religion, its just not called prayer, its self-reassurance. But my problem lies in that a lot of people do believe that prayer is something they can do to have their God help them, and prayers can be hurtful or like curses, and because many times in history people said no no no let us pray for a person rather than give him a doctor or anything else, this is still practiced, just not in as many extremes...at least usually.
Also, just for clarifications sake...here is some more circular logic...repeating the same things for the sake of redundancy will not help your cause If there is no God, then what is life? You love for say 75 years doing something than you die and that is it. That is what atheists believe.
Gabriella Lynn
06-28-12, 12:59 AM
I am washing my hands of this discussion. It is a dead end debate. Both sides have strong beliefs and will not objectively look at the others point of view (especially the atheists). It is useless discussing religion No, it is not. You are the dead end, and I agree, remove yourself from it. You are unwilling to even try to have an understanding of anyone's thoughts or beliefs but your own. If you look at my recent above post not once do I tell you that you are wrong or say that your belief specifically is wrong or single it out, but you in this small post alone have said that (especially the atheists) are wrong and refuse to walk in anyones shoes.
Again, do your research in other religions, and recognize that atheism is not about the refusal of Christianity but the believe that no one yet has it right yet, and its not yet possible to prove or disprove any of the religions so therefore we don't follow or believe any of them. For those of you thinking we are FULLY all about science, you are still wrong, most of us will use science to show you why we think something because science is the one thing that you can reliably prove or disprove something and continue to repeat that same subject with the same results. If ever something in science is proved to be wrong, it becomes not a fact, we use logic rather than "faith" where we just go okay this is what it is said to be and thats that, like much of religion does.
We are not a cult, although I will say some atheist's, (just like any other common like-minded people) have banded together and do things much akin to a cult or organization, (such as people who band together on forums about a particular topic... ) Your religion is not wrong, and I will never tell you it is wrong, I just believe many aspects of it are contradictory to fundamental beliefs it is built on, and it is as corrupt as any other organized group.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 01:04 AM
No, it is not. You are the dead end, and I agree, remove yourself from it.
No wonder I don't get along with atheists :rolleyes:.
Gabriella Lynn
06-28-12, 01:16 AM
No wonder I don't get along with atheists :rolleyes:.
I do think it's funny that you negative comment every opinion my boyfriend and I have when we were just stating our view and our side of things just the same as you.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 01:20 AM
House is a good but exaggerated example of atheists. Most somewhat look down on Christians or believers of any other religion (IMO). Most come across as jerks to. They also use science to explain everything and need evidence. Most atheists don't get that Christians don't need evidence and don't need proof (though if you look hard enough there is edvidence).
I don't really get this. People are all the same. Just because their beliefs may clash with yours shouldn't keep you or them from doing all they possibly could to help you out in a sticky situation. I've never met anyone who helped me out with a broken-down car or a dangerous situation who asked me up front what my religion was and neither have I ever done such a thing. Unless you're a hater, what's the point?
donniedarko
06-28-12, 01:22 AM
I am washing my hands of this discussion. It is a dead end debate. Both sides have strong beliefs and will not objectively look at the others point of view (especially the atheists). It is useless discussing religion.
Haha, you actually went back and thumbed down all my posts on here. I doubt you even read them all.
donniedarko
06-28-12, 01:23 AM
No wonder I don't get along with atheists :rolleyes:.
That's your problem, you separate people by religion. That and you put blant arguments without supporting them.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 01:24 AM
Haha, you actually went back and thumbed down all my posts on here. I doubt you even read them all.
After I saw that you thumbed down nearly all mine.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 01:26 AM
That's your problem, you separate people by religion.
Your actually right. I try not to be friends with atheists or even agnostic people. I have had friends who were atheists. But those friendships didn't last much after I found out they were. I dumped my ex girlfriend because she was an atheist. I try to not associate with them at all cost. That may be a dick thing to do. But that is how seriously I take my beliefs.
That's actually pretty awful. What if it was the other way around, would you condone it? You're sounding increasingly more like an extremist, and that's not good.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 01:36 AM
That's actually pretty awful. What if it was the other way around, would you condone it? You're sounding increasingly more like an extremist, and that's not good.
Some atheists do that all time time! An atheist did that to me in high school once for my beliefs!
It may be awful. But it is what it is.
And who said I'm okay with an atheist doing it? Because someone else does something, it suddenly makes it "okay" for you to shut people out due to their belief/non-belief? No, it isn't what it is. I can see where you're headed, and I actually feel kind of bad for you. It's polluted your mind.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 01:41 AM
That is just my hang up really. I just kind of like to hang around people who think like me. If that makes me closed minded. Well so be it you know?
planet news
06-28-12, 01:55 AM
As far as the last post goes, there is no "evidence". He can't provide any. Both of you are acting very emotionally right now, but believe it or not, it's not personal. I've been looking at my cats today, and I have to say that I believe they are just as emotional. Others tell me, no, they're just reacting to food, shelter, comfort and the lack thereof. I ask them then, what makes that different than anything we do, other than the spoken language to communicate our unhappiness? Then, I hear my cats' cry out for attention and I say to myself, not a thing.Language is pretty much the key to this entire thing, so your treatment of it as a minor difference is definitely confused.
Religion is not some emotional reaction to the disorderliness/meaninglessness of the world, although participation in it is often motivated by those factors. Religion is precisely that which makes too much of the meaning already given in day to day life. It emerges from taking thought at face value, allowing the idea of things to dominate over the way things really are.
As the recent focus on the Bible shows, religion is absolutely a linguistic phenomenon.
The point is that the tension between religion and irreligion involves a question of how to conceive of thought. It has nothing necessarily to do with emotion except as a by-product. Religion seeks first and foremost to raise thought to the highest plane; it seeks to give our thoughts 'meaning' in a robust sense: consequence.
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 02:14 AM
I dumped my ex girlfriend because she was an atheist.
Oh, please. She was probably flat chested and a terrible lay or maybe she didn't do something right -- or enough -- and you had dreams of finding someone else who was better. I bet if some slutty, big breasted bimbo had come along and she happened to be an atheist, you'd give up God for the almighty **** and ass.
Have you got a new girlfriend? How attractive is she compared to the atheist? How much more fun is she? You sound like the kind of guy who prefers beauty over brains.
I'm going to pray for you tonight -- I'll pray that God will give you a much hotter woman. Someone that will really blow your Christian mind. It will be a religious experience when she steps into your life. You'll thank me later. Don't worry -- happier days are coming. Just wait.
Or, hell, maybe you don't even want a woman. Maybe you're gay.
donniedarko
06-28-12, 02:16 AM
Your actually right. I try not to be friends with atheists or even agnostic people. I have had friends who were atheists. But those friendships didn't last much after I found out they were. I dumped my ex girlfriend because she was an atheist. I try to not associate with them at all cost. That may be a dick thing to do. But that is how seriously I take my beliefs.
Now that one deserves a negative rep.
I find it sad that you are so close minded that you'd break up with someone for there beliefs and not even be friends. ThAt actually shocked because that's to the point of hate. I would never disregard a friendship for a religion. And I don't see how that could be a good thing that your religion made you throw out friendships. You know being athiest a disease or anything, trust me it's not contagious.
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 02:23 AM
You know being athiest a disease or anything, trust me it's not contagious.
Yes it is. It's a beneficial brain disease.
Religion is precisely that which makes too much of the meaning already given in day to day life. It emerges from taking thought at face value, allowing the idea of things to dominate over the way things really are.
Sums up what I've always been wanting to say.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 02:48 AM
Oh, please. She was probably flat chested and a terrible lay or maybe she didn't do something right -- or enough -- and you had dreams of finding someone else who was better. I bet if some slutty, big breasted bimbo had come along and she happened to be an atheist, you'd give up God for the almighty **** and ass.
Have you got a new girlfriend? How attractive is she compared to the atheist? How much more fun is she? You sound like the kind of guy who prefers beauty over brains.
I'm going to pray for you tonight -- I'll pray that God will give you a much hotter woman. Someone that will really blow your Christian mind. It will be a religious experience when she steps into your life. You'll thank me later. Don't worry -- happier days are coming. Just wait.
Or, hell, maybe you don't even want a woman. Maybe you're gay.
I just didn't see our relationship progressing with us being on both extremes. She wasn't a bad girl at all. Just don't see myself in a relationship with an atheist.
And yes I have a new girlfriend. She is a nice Christian :D.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 02:50 AM
Now that one deserves a negative rep.
I find it sad that you are so close minded that you'd break up with someone for there beliefs and not even be friends. ThAt actually shocked because that's to the point of hate. I would never disregard a friendship for a religion. And I don't see how that could be a good thing that your religion made you throw out friendships. You know being athiest a disease or anything, trust me it's not contagious.
Like I said if it is being closed minded so be it. I don't hate atheist or agnostic people. I just don't want to associate with them. I pray for them everyday. Like I said I prefer to hang out with people who are like me. I prefer to hang out with people who believe there is a reason for the world and not just because.
TheUsualSuspect
06-28-12, 03:26 AM
It looks like Filmmaker went on a negative rep spree!!!!!
I had to chuckle when you said you wash your hands of this decision, okay Pontius.
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 03:28 AM
I had to chuckle when you said you wash your hands of this decision, okay Pontius.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6rUGF5P2qLY/T4xnPhnxJpI/AAAAAAAAAcU/uOOB8iebRYw/s1600/cootie2.jpg
Don't wash your hands, Filmmaker. You'll accidentally evict Mr. and Mrs. Atheist and Agnostic Cootie.
Mysticalunicornfart
06-28-12, 04:05 AM
Oh, please. She was probably flat chested and a terrible lay or maybe she didn't do something right -- or enough -- and you had dreams of finding someone else who was better. I bet if some slutty, big breasted bimbo had come along and she happened to be an atheist, you'd give up God for the almighty **** and ass.
Have you got a new girlfriend? How attractive is she compared to the atheist? How much more fun is she? You sound like the kind of guy who prefers beauty over brains.
I'm going to pray for you tonight -- I'll pray that God will give you a much hotter woman. Someone that will really blow your Christian mind. It will be a religious experience when she steps into your life. You'll thank me later. Don't worry -- happier days are coming. Just wait.
Or, hell, maybe you don't even want a woman. Maybe you're gay.
Sounds like you have a crushy-poo on Filmmaker.
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 01:08 PM
Sounds like you have a crushy-poo on Filmmaker.
Until Filmmaker revealed that he dumped an atheist girlfriend, I thought Filmmaker was female, just because of the avatar. I forget that guys like to use avatars of women because they find them sexy -- I'm so used to real women posters using avatars of women to represent themselves.
Actually, I shouldn't have even assumed that Filmmaker was a male -- he could have been a lesbian.
I suppose it's possible that once I realized he was a male, I inadvertently flirted in my own way.
Well I'm reading NIV as I'm replying and it specifically says that if your own mother, father, wife, ect try to sway you away then you shall kill them showing no mercy.
And who is it addressed to? I can you "YOU should do something," but if I'm not saying it to you, it doesn't necessarily apply to you. It was addressed to the Israelites.
Also, it seems to me you kinda have to pick your criticism. On one hand, you suggest that Filmmaker (and some other Christians, I think, though you're vaguer about that) will bend over backwards to justify any criticism you throw at them about the Bible. On the other hand, nobody's actually suggesting this verse means you should be killed for being an Atheist. So clearly, there's a degree of critical thinking here, even if you think it's inadequate.
And With the city worshiping another god, it never says anything specific per city, It says if one sees a town worshipping false idols burn it and everyone inside including the animals. It seems very general.
It is specifically about the Promised Land; the Israelites were set to reenter it, if I'm not mistaken. There's a more thorough verse-by-verse analysis here (http://www.finaltrump.com/2010/02/deuteronomy-chapter-7-7-enemies-who-occupied-the-promised-land-natural-and-spiritual-lessons/) that might be informative.
Just in general, though: whether you find this stuff persuasive or not, you can safely assume that there's some serious thought and serious debate about all of it. There's no magic verse that clearly demonstrates some patently ridiculous thing about the Bible. Atheists like to act like the Bible is just full of smoking guns they can use to render it ridiculous, but that's only because they insist on very simplistic readings of what is--whatever you think of it--a far from simplistic text.
I also hear that the new testement does surpass the old one, but what did Gid change his mind. Was a good portion of the things in old testement just a mistake by God who knows everything?
This is a false dichotomy. It could simply be that rules appropriate for one time are not appropriate for another. For example, denying a God that is making Himself very clearly and tangibly known in obvious ways is a much bigger deal than denying one that isn't doing so. It's a much greater act of spiritual defiance.
Because a lot of things did change in the transition between old to new. Passover, Yom Kipur, and Roshashana, well you don't have to worry about that anymore, just replace it with other days of worship. Shabbat which is a HUGE part of the old testement was just come rely surpassed. Kosher was completely erased (yes I know, after Jesus came we don't have to sacrifice anymore) but really between old and new testement peretty much everything changed. Making it seem like it was two completely different Gods writing each half.
Or something really big happened at some point in the Bible that changed everything. I'll give you one guess as to what that might be. ;)
I have, I've talked to two rabbis, a really religious Jewish man who's read te old testement cover to cover multiple times, and the son of a pastor about this verse, the religious man actually told me that it was never written there, everyone else said it was jut poorly translated. Actually one of them did say it was just the time period, but God still should've had morals.
Well, He does. But they don't always align with ours.
Let me ask you a question: if God does exist, would you guess that His morals would be identical to yours, the opposite of yours, or somewhat similar to yours, but different on some issues that made you uncomfortable? And whatever your answer: why?
I just don't think people have the right to say that's not what it actually said, when they've never seen the original
True, but they do have a right to question the idea. And this rule has to apply in both directions, right? How many Atheists who cite these verses as evidence of a contradiction do you think go back and read the Hebrew?
I guess you could say that about any skeptic, I agree with you there.
Big of you to say. And I think it's an important point. Lots of Atheists like to say "I'll believe it when I see it." But it's pretty clear they could see all sorts of insane things, and they'll always assume there's a physical, rational explanation. And I'm a skeptic at heart in lots of things; I think there usually is a physical, rational explanation for things, and I almost always err on that side. But I don't think people can say that and simultaneously talk about how they'd only believe if they saw X. It's pretty clear they wouldn't. Which means they disbelieve independent of both faith and experience.
will.15
06-28-12, 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by donniedarko http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=822496#post822496)
Because a lot of things did change in the transition between old to new. Passover, Yom Kipur, and Roshashana, well you don't have to worry about that anymore, just replace it with other days of worship. Shabbat which is a HUGE part of the old testement was just come rely surpassed. Kosher was completely erased (yes I know, after Jesus came we don't have to sacrifice anymore) but really between old and new testement peretty much everything changed. Making it seem like it was two completely different Gods writing each half.
"Or something really big happened at some point in the Bible that changed everything. I'll give you one guess as to what that might be. ;)"
Well, I think it is a big thing because the real founder of Christianity isn't Jesus, it is Paul. He changed everything, not Jesus, who was an observant Jew.
But then how is that free will?
How is it not? God is God, but if you want to walk away, you can. I fail to see the problem. Are you suggesting that God should somehow be less God-like, therefore rendering the downside of rejecting Him less severe?
I will agree that Revelation is one that's tought to quote because it's not really black and white and uses symbols more then actual figures. But then you can say that everything in the bible is poetry
That would be an extremely hard position to defend, I think. Huge chunks of it read nothing like poetry. That's one of the things I think is so incredible about it: it seems to work very hard to deny us the easy way out on its central claims. There are plenty of parables, but it also clearly presents itself as an historical text on the most important issues. Lewis harped on this a lot: that one of the "big" facts of Christianity is that it definitively says "This happened, and it means this," and forces people to explicitly reject or accept that notion. It doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room to arbitrarily pick and choose among the core beliefs.
Well if God offers one book as the proof that he exists, that we are all supposed to believe, that just doesn't seem like enough to say that if you don't believe in this you suffer for eternity. And as in terms of the light, yes If you see the light is there then it's different than a book saying there's a light an if you want the effects of it then get your head dipped under water and every Sunday go to a building and preach and ask for forgiveness for your pure existence.
But the Bible doesn't say any of that is necessary for salvation. It doesn't say you have to believe in God, get baptised, go to Church every Sunday, and listen to sermons to be saved. It says you should do these things, and I think a genuine Christian will make an effort to do them. But none of those other things are explicitly required to be near "the light."
I'd also argue that there is far more evidence for God than the Bible. The Bible is evidence of Christ, specifically. But the evidence of God is far more profound, basic, and available to all thinking people. Which is why many people believed in God long before Christ came along.
Now I have a question Yoda,
Why is it that Christianity is correct? What separates it from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Bhuddism, ect. What makes it more realistic. And what about it is more believable than the listed religions?
Great question, and I would encourage you to ask as many of these sorts of questions as you like. :)
I notice this is a big sticking point for Atheists; they often talk about how silly it feels to say that, with so many religions, this ONE must be true. I have several responses to this:
1) This is a decent question for a Theist or a Deist to ask, but not a good one for an Atheist, because an Atheist rejects the one thing that even all of these different faiths agree on: the existence of God. That agreement throughout history is a big deal.
2) I think the biggest difference between Christianity and the other religions is that Christianity purports to be about a fact, and not just a feeling. It says God LITERALLY came down and became Man, and was LITERALLY crucified, and that God has explicitly revealed Himself through these things (and through scripture). It doesn't say, like many other religions, that a prophet showed up and merely told us how things worked, and that was it.
I'm reminded of this when I talk to people with less defined beliefs. They'll say they like this part of a religion, or that part, and then they'll describe what they think, but apparently have no mechanism for weighing its likelihood other than whether or not it feels right. Christianity says it's true whether it feels right to you or not, and you can't know it all just by thinking about it. You can reason out the existence of God, and even some things about His nature. But Christianity, specifically, is based on revelation.
A sub-part of this is that it's based on an eyewitness account. Lots of people died to proclaim Christ's divinity. Lots of people die for lots of things, of course, but they're not eyewitnesses. 11 of Jesus' disciples were killed! Four were crucified, two were stoned to death, one was beheaded, etc...and the only one who wasn't killed was exiled. The idea being, after a few of these, the remaining disciples had to really believe in what they were dying for, because they clearly saw what the consequences of their belief may be. And they didn't die just for believing something, but for the idea that they had explicitly seen it. Is this impossible? No. But it's something a denier certainly has to grapple with.
3) There are lots of other smaller reasons, of course. I could not possibly enumerate them all on a lark. One of the ones that rings true to me, though, is one that both Chesterton and Lewis wrote about, which is Christianity's surprisingness. By that I mean, it is not a simple, deductive faith. It doesn't say something overtly simple that someone would just guess, like "there's one big life force and we're all apart of it" or "God made the world and then walked away." These may or may not be true, but they are very simple. They're the kinds of things you would claim and/or believe if you desired that your worldview be simple, first and foremost.
Christianity isn't like that. The basics are simple, but it's complicated otherwise. If it's a lie, it's a very bad one, because it doesn't strive for the simplicity that makes for a really good lie.
This isn't proof, of course--there are other beliefs that are very specific and complicated that we both agree are nonsense. But being rooted in history AND being so highly specific, and so poorly conceived as a fraud, makes for a powerful combination.
Free will is no more a mystery than life.
During this discussion you've seemed utterly convinced that free will existed, and that atheism posed no problem for this belief. Now, once it (appears?) that the contradiction has been established, it's suddenly a "mystery"?
If you're not sure if you believe in free will, well, okay. That's fine. I'm not going to browbeat you into having an opinion. But until very recently you seemed to have a very strong opinion: that free will definitely existed. Do you still think this? I'm not looking for a victory lap, but if your statement above indicates a change in position, that'd be nice information to have.
Oh, and I don't see how it's unreasonable to break up with someone because they're an atheist. Having fundamentally different beliefs is a significant hurdle. I can't imagine too many people outraged by this idea would be similarly upset if someone broke up with their girlfriend for being a fundamentalist.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 03:09 PM
Oh, and I don't see how it's unreasonable to break up with someone because they're an atheist. Having fundamentally different beliefs is a significant hurdle. I can't imagine too many people outraged by this idea would be similarly upset if someone broke up with their girlfriend for being a fundamentalist.
Exactly. I doubt an atheist would want to be in a long term relationship with a christian.
will.15
06-28-12, 03:27 PM
During this discussion you've seemed utterly convinced that free will existed, and that atheism posed no problem for this belief. Now, once it (appears?) that the contradiction has been established, it's suddenly a "mystery"?
If you're not sure if you believe in free will, well, okay. That's fine. I'm not going to browbeat you into having an opinion. But until very recently you seemed to have a very strong opinion: that free will definitely existed. Do you still think this? I'm not looking for a victory lap, but if your statement above indicates a change in position, that'd be nice information to have.
I believe in free will. And don't know why it would be hard for atheiststs to believe in free will. But I am not an atheist, who insist everything has a rational explanation, so I can't argue for them. I simply reject religion as having answers that come directly from God. I think religion is entirely man made.
will.15
06-28-12, 03:32 PM
Exactly. I doubt an atheist would want to be in a long term relationship with a christian.
There are marriages like that.
Flimmaker1473
06-28-12, 03:35 PM
There are marriages like that.
There are exceptions to every rule.
Powderfinger
06-28-12, 05:03 PM
There are exceptions to every rule.
Yes, all the time now!
donniedarko
06-28-12, 05:06 PM
And who is it addressed to? I can you "YOU should do something," but if I'm not saying it to you, it doesn't necessarily apply to you. It was addressed to the Israelites
Also, it seems to me you kinda have to pick your criticism. On one hand, you suggest that Filmmaker (and some other Christians, I think, though you're vaguer about that) will bend over backwards to justify any criticism you throw at them about the Bible. On the other hand, nobody's actually suggesting this verse means you should be killed for being an Atheist. So clearly, there's a degree of critical thinking here, even if you think it's inadequate.
It is specifically about the Promised Land; the Israelites were set to reenter it, if I'm not mistaken. There's a more thorough verse-by-verse analysis here (http://www.finaltrump.com/2010/02/deuteronomy-chapter-7-7-enemies-who-occupied-the-promised-land-natural-and-spiritual-lessons/) that might be informative.
Just in general, though: whether you find this stuff persuasive or not, you can safely assume that there's some serious thought and serious debate about all of it. There's no magic verse that clearly demonstrates some patently ridiculous thing about the Bible. Atheists like to act like the Bible is just full of smoking guns they can use to render it ridiculous, but that's only because they insist on very simplistic readings of what is--whatever you think of it--a far from simplistic text.
Well no it never says to kill if someones an Athiest. It says to kill if someone tries to sway you or to burn villages that worship false idles. But if you say this can be up for interpretation, I could say anything in the Bible can be interpreted differently than as it says. I don't think it's right to interpret sections that seem immoral a different way and when something seems to show morality you can point a finger and say well see that's the holy merciful God. For me and I do get criticized for this unless it's 100% clear poetry then I interpret it as it reads. I don't try to find a twist that could make it seem different, I don't really there's any inner meaning in killing without mercy. If I looked at that part as poetry then I'd have to look at the Bible as a book of poems. But I have been told when I debate things I look at it to Black & White, maybe that's something I have to work on.
This is a false dichotomy. It could simply be that rules appropriate for one time are not appropriate for another. For example, denying a God that is making Himself very clearly and tangibly known in obvious ways is a much bigger deal than denying one that isn't doing so. It's a much greater act of spiritual defiance.
Or something really big happened at some point in the Bible that changed everything. I'll give you one guess as to what that might be. ;) Gosh what could that be :p. But on a serious note I just can't see the same God changing so many things that he told the Jews in the Old Testament to listen to and now just changing it all. Just small things are changed, like the day of worship. In the OT sabbath was very specific as the day of rest. It was the day God rested from creating earth and he wanted everyone else to do so, I just can't see him changing everything, all his rules and morals.
And I think Gods morals should be everlasting, not just appropriate for a time. If he'd have to change in diffent times he's have to make a bible per decade. This edition would feature rules about Sexting and legalizing of pot. That's why I thin k his morals should last forever, and not be changed
Let me ask you a question: if God does exist, would you guess that His morals would be identical to yours, the opposite of yours, or somewhat similar to yours, but different on some issues that made you uncomfortable? And whatever your answer: why?I think it'd be similar to the ideas our moms taught us as kids. "Sharing", "Treat others the way you want to be treated", ect. And mixed with some things from the U.S. law (or most any law from an MDC) don't kill, don't steal, don't rape kids. I can't imagine either one saying as in . Leviticus 19:20-22, if a man rapes his female slave... the woman gets punished and the man's sins are forgiven. Look for your self it says that. That just does not seem like morals a holy god would have to me.
I'll reply to your other reply later today
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 05:30 PM
Exactly. I doubt an atheist would want to be in a long term relationship with a christian.
Depends on what he looks like and what kind of personality he has. The religious stuff I could overlook -- and perhaps even adopt.
Mysticalunicornfart
06-28-12, 05:39 PM
Until Filmmaker revealed that he dumped an atheist girlfriend, I thought Filmmaker was female, just because of the avatar. I forget that guys like to use avatars of women because they find them sexy -- I'm so used to real women posters using avatars of women to represent themselves.
Actually, I shouldn't have even assumed that Filmmaker was a male -- he could have been a lesbian.
I suppose it's possible that once I realized he was a male, I inadvertently flirted in my own way.
You say a lot of ridiculous things.
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 05:52 PM
You say a lot of ridiculous things.
:yup: 'tis fun. It's like having a stress ball on hand wherever you go.
Mysticalunicornfart
06-28-12, 05:58 PM
:yup: 'tis fun. It's like having a stress ball on hand wherever you go.
Maybe. I just hope you realize you're making more of an ass out of yourself than you're making out of FilmMaker.
Sexy Celebrity
06-28-12, 06:04 PM
Maybe. I just hope you realize you're making more of an ass out of yourself than you're making out of FilmMaker.
That's okay. I'm more important.
Skepsis93
06-28-12, 06:04 PM
Maybe. I just hope you realize you're making more of an ass out of yourself than you're making out of FilmMaker.
Flimmaker. Get it right. :p
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.