War, Hatred & Oppression

[tryscotty]

Its no wonder many on this forum seem to be non religious. When you think of the worlds problems and that most people claim to have a religion, its easy to disregard God. I also think that its the very fact God doesn't seem to be doing anything these days when the worlds in the toilet that many turn to atheism under the guise of science. Point being, all the so called scientific reasons would all go out the door if God appeared to you personally wouldn't they? All of a sudden those ever changing facts you once held dear wouldn't add up to squat.

My point is this: All these so called religions out there claiming to be worshiping God according to the Bible and what Jesus taught, are not worshiping him. His word states he doesn't accept their worship. There would be no wars fought by any Christian ever if these followed what Jesus taught. Blame mankind and these religious hypocrites, not God. As for the next point God has been very active, you just need to know where to look. Case in point, the Bible said the world would be in the toilet in the End days, science promised Utopia. Who's right on that one? Good news on that though, its the last days of wickedness,war,hatred and oppression and yes God is the judge on that one, humans are not. Just my thought for the day, as a Christian I really cant stand so called Christianity and I fully understand why people are turning away in droves. Final thought, God also blames religion for all the bloodshed on the earth. Thats in the last book of the Bible. Bye and have fun with this, but try to be kind with your comments. Believe me I didn't say half of what I wanted too.

[tryscotty]

No comments on this? I would be interested in any who claim to be Christian that feel we need to kill our brothers for the sake of our nation. Of course both world wars would not have happened if YOU followed Jesus COMMAND to love your enemies. What do you have to say for yourselves in defense? It's no wonder there are so many atheists.

[1nick]

:-#

[don_pepe]

A rebuttal could be approached in any number of ways. The most obvious to me is why has God done such a poor job of protecting his word? Early Christianity had many books and gospels that people followed, canonization was done by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Was Athanasius a prophet? How did he know what books were true and which were not if not divinely inspired?

There are over 38,000 Christian denominations in the world, if they're all based off of the same perfect set of ideas why so much disagreement? Why aren't there 38,000 different types of Geology all disagreeing with each other? Because Geology is testable the bible is based on interpretation the same way Shakespearean literature is.

What about Mohammed, if you're a true Christian you have to assume that he was a false prophet. Today there are over 1 billion Muslims which according to your bible are all going to hell, why didn't God simply have allowed another sperm to reach his mothers egg first making an entirely different person and saving billions from torment?

BTW Science never promised anything. It's a system of measuring and predicting the natural world nothing more.

If God appeared at my door step tomorrow (or Vishnu or a Unicorn) I would assume that I was having a hallucination. Even if Richard Dawkins seen God on the road to Damascus I'd assume he was hallucinating as well. Even if a being appeared and made the Sahara green and wiped out disease I'd still be skeptical as such things could be done with technology. If that same being started raising random people from the dead and it was verified by doctors and scientists I would be less skeptical as that would be scientifically impossible.

[Born_again]

I am quite encouraged that you have taken the time to exercise a little critical introspection and evaluation of the disparity between your held beliefs in Christ' message and the chimaera born of Christian dogma, as evidenced in our everyday lives. This is your domain, and I am merely an affected observer. However, I think that I am entitled to comment on the following:

I also think that its the very fact God doesn't seem to be doing anything these days when the worlds in the toilet that many turn to atheism under the guise of science. Point being, all the so called scientific reasons would all go out the door if God appeared to you personally wouldn't they? All of a sudden those ever changing facts you once held dear wouldn't add up to squat.

Let's clear up a misconception first. You don't "turn" to atheism. There is nothing to "turn" to. You simply become atheist or are atheist. Hopefully you will come to accept this as I examine the rest of your quote above.

Science is science. Whether deities exist or not, the methodology that defines "science" will be completely unchanged. This is the status now and forever, regardless of discoveries or revelations that happen along the way. New hypothesis will be hypothesised, some will become Scientific Theory, and some may become Scientific Law. Science will not be weakened by this, but further validated. Beautiful, isn't it?

If a deity were to appear to me personally, atheism would not be challenged. My atheism might be, dependent upon the nature of the manifestation.
If a deity were to appear to everyone, atheism would be a null position.

You see, atheism is not a disbelief in deities, but rather an absence of belief that deities exist. Big difference. Christians are allowed, nay, they are commanded to have a disbelief in all deities except for the deity that commands them. This is a luxury that atheism necessarily cannot support. To have a disbelief in something, one must acknowledge the existence of that something, thereby confounding any claim to atheism. It is only the absence of belief that supports a claim of atheism.

In the 'end of times' scenario that you subscribe to, your much-fancied egg-on-face moment for atheists may actually turn out to be quite the opposite. There are claims to over 4,000 deities at present, so each and every one of them have equal and legitimate claims to the biggest party humanity has seen. Let's hope for your sake that it is not one of the deities that you disbelieved that makes an appearance, especially if it is as jealous as the God of Christian lore!!

So, I'm now open to charges of mockery and persecution, or whatever other whimsical slight that may come my way. So be it.

[Tumult]

...
Let's clear up a misconception first. You don't "turn" to atheism. There is nothing to "turn" to. You simply become atheist or are atheist. Hopefully you will come to accept this as I examine the rest of your quote above.

...

You see, atheism is not a disbelief in deities, but rather an absence of belief that deities exist. Big difference. Christians are allowed, nay, they are commanded to have a disbelief in all deities except for the deity that commands them. This is a luxury that atheism necessarily cannot support. To have a disbelief in something, one must acknowledge the existence of that something, thereby confounding any claim to atheism. It is only the absence of belief that supports a claim of atheism.

I think the misconception arises when people are faced with individuals who claim the title atheist but are at the same time antitheists or irreligious. If we consider the term atheist like the term amoral then yes lack of belief is fine and dandy, for example a cat is both atheist and amoral. It's easy to see why people would be confused when people claiming a simple lack of belief are active in denouncing and/or rejecting the very belief they claim to lack, because that position more rightly falls under disbelief. I think that there are many who claim the title of atheist who would be better represented by a different term for it seems that there are growing numbers of self proclaimed atheists who feel a need to espouse their antipathy towards the idea of any type of god/gods while someone who is well and truly atheist is most likely to be an apatheist

[Born_again]

I get what you are getting at, Tumult, but consider this: I often have a hard time dealing with the tangible results of religious fervour, the type that effects my daily life, as much as I'm effected by the embarrassing chant of a fledgling atheist who can't fathom that religion has inspired some beautiful architecture and art.

Does that make me antitheist and anti-atheist at the same time? Of course not! At the end of the day, no matter how much I disagree with an atrocity committed in the name of religion or my distaste at the way in which an anti-theist protest such atrocities, I will remain an atheist regardless. You can attach all the names you want, but if you have the absence of belief in the existence of deities; you are an atheist. Perhaps we should invent the terms, 'atheistic anti-theist' or 'atheistic anti-atheist' to better cater to the whims of practitioners of semantics?

[Tumult]

I get what you are getting at, Tumult, but consider this: I often have a hard time dealing with the tangible results of religious fervour, the type that effects my daily life, as much as I'm effected by the embarrassing chant of a fledgling atheist who can't fathom that religion has inspired some beautiful architecture and art.

That's understandable, certainly the fruits of fervour (especially religious) can be loathsome to behold.

Does that make me antitheist and anti-atheist at the same time? Of course not! At the end of the day, no matter how much I disagree with an atrocity committed in the name of religion or my distaste at the way in which an anti-theist protest such atrocities, I will remain an atheist regardless. You can attach all the names you want, but if you have the absence of belief in the existence of deities; you are an atheist. Perhaps we should invent the terms, 'atheistic anti-theist' or 'atheistic anti-atheist' to better cater to the whims of practitioners of semantics?

The preferred (by) atheist(s) definition is the broadest most encompassing and so I was merely suggesting it might smooth over some of the commonplace wrinkles of discussion if atheists took the time to flesh out their positions into something less likely to cause confusion and misconceptions about what they stand for or against.

[Born_again]

The preferred (by) atheist(s) definition is the broadest most encompassing and so I was merely suggesting it might smooth over some of the commonplace wrinkles of discussion if atheists took the time to flesh out their positions into something less likely to cause confusion and misconceptions about what they stand for or against.

The biggest problem with that is that many people can't even get to grips with the meaning of the word, atheist! By chucking more derivatives out there these people they will use their ignorance to breed yet more ignorance. It's just the way they operate(successfully, I woefully concede) and you sometimes have to question their motives.

There are plenty of people out there that believe in a personal deity, but are rabid antitheists. Unfortunately, not many people acknowledge that. They like to hold connotations that to be antitheist, one must be atheist. :eyeballspin:

[Tumult]

The preferred (by) atheist(s) definition is the broadest most encompassing and so I was merely suggesting it might smooth over some of the commonplace wrinkles of discussion if atheists took the time to flesh out their positions into something less likely to cause confusion and misconceptions about what they stand for or against.

The biggest problem with that is that many people can't even get to grips with the meaning of the word, atheist! By chucking more derivatives out there these people they will use their ignorance to breed yet more ignorance. It's just the way they operate(successfully, I woefully concede) and you sometimes have to question their motives.

There are plenty of people out there that believe in a personal deity, but are rabid antitheists. Unfortunately, not many people acknowledge that. They like to hold connotations that to be antitheist, one must be atheist. :eyeballspin:

Maybe we could make up a menu and people can state their position like a starbucks drink.

Extra-Frothing Fanatic Irreligious Antitheist Atheist ?
Zealous Extra-Pious Theist with Revelatory Sprinkles?

Meh

[don_pepe]

I've started calling myself a skeptic of late as it's a little more broad. For example Raelians are atheists but believe we were created by aliens. You can also accept silly things like homeopathy or Ogopogo and still not believe in a deity.

The term skeptic also has some baggage as global warming denialists also refer to themselves as skeptics.

[Glacier]

I've started calling myself a skeptic of late as it's a little more broad. For example Raelians are atheists but believe we were created by aliens. You can also accept silly things like homeopathy or Ogopogo and still not believe in a deity.

The term skeptic also has some baggage as global warming denialists also refer to themselves as skeptics.

LOL, so anyone who is skeptical of the stuff you believe is a denialist, but anyone who believes as you is a skeptic? How scientific.

[Born_again]

Maybe we could make up a menu and people can state their position like a starbucks drink.

Extra-Frothing Fanatic Irreligious Antitheist Atheist ?
Zealous Extra-Pious Theist with Revelatory Sprinkles?

Meh

LOL Or, get yourself enumerated into a new form of Geek Code; Freak Code, perhaps. :dyinglaughing:

[dudlee]

Religion is like Global warming , even it killed the dinosaurs. The change in climates isn't due to Green House gases , it's TIME . Time the number one thing that man has a problem with , and why is that you may ask? Well maybe it's because he can't control it , like he does his own kind and other species . Just look at Al Gore , who only had one mansion before his environmental bandwagon went global and now he has 9 . Hey Al if you care so much , why didn't you buy some old motels to say HELP THE LESS FORTUNATE . Notice how I used the words LESS FORTUNATE , instead of poor , that is because the latter has been so worked by the rich and the media so that it sounds pathetic and useless , while the prior sounds like it can be corrected and sent back on its path to continue on . Life is not like a box of chocolates , because we all know what is in a box of chocolates or we wouldn't have bought that box .Man's largest desire is for control , that is why we have to form unions to protect workers or pay taxes for law enforcement , because when , at that instant , when we realize that we have no control and totally loose it , we need someone to control us . Another thing , "Do you really think that the continents aren't still moving and that could be a cause for the weather changes ?" NAAAAAAH , it's just TIME

[tryscotty]

Read OP. Next find thread relevant. Third. Bye