atheism

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:35 am

You conveniently left out the part of that parable of Abraham jewing God down where God finally lost patience and nuked the city.

Also, the specific part of (the Inferno, not Purgatorio, it's been awhile) I was referring to:
http://www.bartleby.com/20/104.html

Basically a lot of cool people chilling in hell, discussing cool people stuff. It was a worthy afterlife.

Tehra · **Posted:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:49 am

Aestu wrote:

You conveniently left out the part of that parable of Abraham jewing God down where God finally lost patience and nuked the city.

You mean the next chapter where Lot was found to be the only one worthy in the city? A deal was a deal, and there was a warning that no one paid attention to. History repeats.

Aestu wrote:

Also, the specific part of (the Inferno, not Purgatorio, it's been awhile) I was referring to:
http://www.bartleby.com/20/104.html

Basically a lot of cool people chilling in hell, discussing cool people stuff. It was a worthy afterlife.

Believing only in man lumps you in with the same crew, for eternity. Which, to some, can be torment.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:55 am

According to the way I learned it, all are, or were, condemned, save the tribes of Israel, who were the chosen of God. The condemnation you speak of was not a new concept developed by God specifically for those who denied the divine nature of Christ, it was the fate of all men, and Christ was sent to open a way for all mankind to avoid that fate. God does not punish men for disbelief, he grants mercy to those who should be punished because they believe.

It's a bit complicated.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Laelia · **Posted:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:52 am

Tehra wrote:

The basic tenets of the religion are not to oppress the unbeliever, but to explain if needed. What you cite refers to what'll happen at the end, which is something the unbeliever will read and either accept or reject.

People use those words to suit their agenda, much like you use them to suit your argument that it's all about "control". If you want to be "free", you have the ability to make that choice and find out what happens later. Not sure why you're so concerned about attributing "control of the masses" to a deity that's already supposed to be in control of everything in the first place. Someone in control doesn't need to take what's already theirs.

I have said it's your choice. I haven't said where you're going. Do I believe that you'll go where you believe it says? No. I believe you'll find a way out of it. Condemnation is a vague term, anyway. Ever been scolded as a child and cry? It feels like the end of the world to you. Ever have a "holy father" figure scold you as you're leaving this plane? It's the same core feeling, just a sense of scale. Christianity teaches that God loves you, and you should love him, and love yourself, and love each other. Eventually when you let the kids run around the playground recklessly, you need to show some tough love to bring them back in order.

Or "control", as you see it.

You're still trying to dispute points I didn't make. This wasn't about oppression or what is happening after I die, this is about whether a tenet of Christianity is that non-believers are "going to hell" or being punished or however you want to phrase it. It's pretty clear that it is.

Joklem · **Posted:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:57 am

I now hold a PhD in Heresy. True story!

Boredalt · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:10 am

Simplified, because I know you aren't looking for a history lesson:

Ambrose Bierce believed in a loving God who was in control of everything. He believed in living the Godly life and in dying the good death quietly surrounded by family; everyone confident that he would be bound for glory. Then, the American Civil War happened to him. He fought in several battles, but Shiloh really shattered him. He decided that there could not be a God if something like the Battle of Shiloh could happen. In any case, he pretty much spent the rest of his life railing against a God in whom he no longer believed. If you are familiar with him, you know what I'm talking about. If you aren't, I think some of you will enjoy some of his quotes, specifically the one defining "pray".

http://quote.robertgenn.com/auth_search.php?authid=272

Aestu · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:15 am

No one whose belief in a god does not provide for human evil is a true believer.

Usdk · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:08 pm

I don't believe in no double negatives

Rathmoon · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:44 pm

Ok now here's an example of what I was trying to say earlier,

http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.a ... FAL32v1_WS

by posting this, I'm not trying to convert you (was a post from a friend), just stating as another small example of the kind of people you will not, nor can bridged science convince there is no God. Despite my anger at many hypocrites in religion and politics, I feel the majority of these people are good people and extremely charitable folks. Errybody needs to be frens

Joklem · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:30 pm

Rathmoon wrote:

Ok now here's an example of what I was trying to say earlier,

http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.a ... FAL32v1_WS

by posting this, I'm not trying to convert you (was a post from a friend), just stating as another small example of the kind of people you will not, nor can bridged science convince there is no God. Despite my anger at many hypocrites in religion and politics, I feel the majority of these people are good people and extremely charitable folks. Errybody needs to be frens

Yeah, but I see the same in the Christian camp although it's not as extreme yet. For example the doctor who was murdered by a religious leader, influenced by his faith, bible-derived morality and convinced that he is doing the will of God. And the religious leaders who still support him.

One thing in common with most of the religions is that the more fundamentalist people see atheists (edit: and other faiths) as a real threat to their system. Sure there's ridiculizing and smugness going on but I haven't heard of any violence, although these things can be misinterpreted as hate. (internet atheist idiots who are hateful are religious without a religion, for your information)

I'll suggest a documentary that you will probably find offensive, it's Dawkins traveling the world and investigating the effect of different degrees of faith on people. A lot of interviews of people of different faiths, and he himself says the same thing you just said:

Quote:

I feel the majority of these people are good people and extremely charitable folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6d ... 058E411B51

I suggest you watch it without bias because it's Dawkins (contrary to what some people say he's not some kind of bible thumper, the guy is a distinguished biologist and ethologist and his studies led him to this stuff) and come to your own conclusion, mine was the same as yours "everybody needs to be friends", but the open question -- is co-existence even possible? History seems to disagree. Sane people of all faiths need to unite and think of something and get it right, in my opinion.

Keep in mind: he's attacking religion, not the religious and not any person in particular.

Rathmoon · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:25 am

Joklem wrote:

Rathmoon wrote:

Ok now here's an example of what I was trying to say earlier,

http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.a ... FAL32v1_WS

by posting this, I'm not trying to convert you (was a post from a friend), just stating as another small example of the kind of people you will not, nor can bridged science convince there is no God. Despite my anger at many hypocrites in religion and politics, I feel the majority of these people are good people and extremely charitable folks. Errybody needs to be frens

Yeah, but I see the same in the Christian camp although it's not as extreme yet. For example the doctor who was murdered by a religious leader, influenced by his faith, bible-derived morality and convinced that he is doing the will of God. And the religious leaders who still support him.

One thing in common with most of the religions is that the more fundamentalist people see atheists (edit: and other faiths) as a real threat to their system. Sure there's ridiculizing and smugness going on but I haven't heard of any violence, although these things can be misinterpreted as hate. (internet atheist idiots who are hateful are religious without a religion, for your information)

I'll suggest a documentary that you will probably find offensive, it's Dawkins traveling the world and investigating the effect of different degrees of faith on people. A lot of interviews of people of different faiths, and he himself says the same thing you just said:

Quote:

I feel the majority of these people are good people and extremely charitable folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6d ... 058E411B51

I suggest you watch it without bias because it's Dawkins (contrary to what some people say he's not some kind of bible thumper, the guy is a distinguished biologist and ethologist and his studies led him to this stuff) and come to your own conclusion, mine was the same as yours "everybody needs to be friends", but the open question -- is co-existence even possible? History seems to disagree. Sane people of all faiths need to unite and think of something and get it right, in my opinion.

Keep in mind: he's attacking religion, not the religious and not any person in particular.

I'll check it out. My main beef with the average modern christian "thinker" in america is their willingness to believe in a God who gave them the ability to choose their actions, yet they want to vote away their fellow americans domestic rights to liberty/privacy/choice (patriot act, tax benefits for certain institutions, etc etc).

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

atheism

Who is online