|
On May 28 2011 01:15 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:12 poorbeggarman wrote:On May 28 2011 01:05 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:00 poorbeggarman wrote: On May 28 2011 00:27 Metaphysic wrote: I really don't understand people who think he should've just shut up and suffered through it. Do those same people think Rosa Parks should've just sat in the back of the bus like she was supposed to?
If not, then why not? The kid is actually trying to uphold the law, while Rosa Parks was breaking the law. Wouldn't your support for Parks be worse? Suffer? Suffer what? A bunch of people going "our father who art in heaven..bla bla bla"? And how long do you think they're gonna go on and on for? 30 mins? an HOUR? Its just a bunch of people mumbling for 5 minutes at most. If it bothers him THAT much, he needs psychiatric help. Rosa parks was defiant against the biased treatment she got due to being an african-american. Atheists aren't oppressed in a similar manner. This kid actually tried too hard to be a prick. According to Christianity atheists are oppressed in the afterlife by serving a life sentence (with torture) in Hell. And so what? How does that afterlife oppression affect atheists who are still alive?(who incidentally believe that their conciousness and being will be extinguished upon death) Your reply post is irrelevant, make a better argument. You said atheists aren't oppressed like Rosa Parks. I'd say if Christianity was true and God was real, then the ETERNAL oppression atheists suffer is far worse than a lifetime of suffering for blacks.
Another weak argument. Way to digress.
I said atheists aren't opressed like Rosa Parks, that rings true due to history and current laws. You're going off about hullabaloo rofl afterlife shit.
And besides, atheists DON'T BELIEVE IN HELL.
|
On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:09 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:08 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:03 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:00 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:48 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote: [quote]
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Wow, you managed to completely not understand the post you were replying to :| Do you believe in god? If yes, you are theist. If no, you are atheist = lack of belief. It's nothing to do with likeliness or the possibility of the supernatural. I don't know why I HAVE to choose a side. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. And that's a legit position to me, cause we can't know. And by saying "Hey, but it is just more likely that there is no god" and thus makin me an atheist, because I say "I don't know", you judge the likeliness. You just assume that my "I don't know" implies my lack of faith which is just plain wrong. I just don't know. Nothing more, nothing less. you just say that the existence of god needs proove and not the lack of god. That's ok, but something I refuse to rate. From my point of view it is just as likely that nothing makes sense at all and is random energy (with no real origin as it seems), as that some higher entitiy made some pretty cool stuff here, and also that it is something entirely different. We'll never understand how an event horizon actually bends time to infinity or how the borders of the universe are made. Deal with it. That's just stuff our small brain can't handle, so why think of solutions and not just sit back and enjoying the right. So again, it is a third position, right in the middle where no sides exist and I just say "Leave me alone, why think about it, we're too small anyways" Alright this is a Yes or no question, it's very simple. Do you, the person I am speaking to right now, BELIEVE, that is, to hold a belief in a deity. IF YES, you are theist, IF NOT, you are an atheist, although you would be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. My position is "I CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION. cause we never will be able too, our brains are too small". So I just refuse to answer your "yes" or "no" questions due to lack of information / brain Omg, that is nonsense, you CAN answer the question. You know damn well if you believe in a deity or not. The question isn't "DOES GOD EXIST", it is "Do you believe in a God?'" they are freaking different man. No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule him out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I can't answer the "Do you believe in God question" either! Here's an analogy for you. Might not be how you see it, but for me it's kind of the same: "Do you believe that I wear pink socks right now?". How would u answer? Probably with "I don't know" cause you can't. You just don't know enough (Although pink socks might seem unlikely). Ok is it just because English is your second language or do you just have problems with logic ? To the question "Do you believe that I wear pink socks right now?" I answer "no". to the question "Do I wear pink socks right now?" my answer is "I don't know".
Because it seems unlike you I am not a asleep right now and I can actually tell what I am thinking.
|
On May 28 2011 01:21 proxY_ wrote: I remember praying every night when I was a little kid and going through like a 20 - 30 person list of people asking god to protect each one of them because I thought that if I missed someone they would die.
Fuck, I remember doing that shit, except I wasn't a little kid, I was a dumbass 17 year old who had just given his life to Christ.
Great story below in case anyone missed it from the other religious thread:
+ Show Spoiler +Since my childhood the belief in hell tormented me. I was terrified of going there. I was scared to death of burning alive forever. Every time I imagined myself being on fire I would get a chill through my body and a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach. I remember a particular Saturday afternoon when I was riding in the car with my parents and sister and we started talking about heaven and hell. As the conversation progressed, I grew more and more anxious. My mom was talking about asking Jesus into your “heart.” She submitted that those who had done this were “born again” and would go to heaven when they die, while those who died without asking Jesus in would go to hell. It suddenly dawned on me that I could not remember a moment in my life I had done this. What if? What if Jesus wasn’t in my heart? What if I died and went…to Hell?
I burst into tears! I began screaming, “I don’t want to go to hell! I don’t want to go to hell!” My mom tried to reassure me that I had already “prayed the prayer.” I kept insisting I didn’t remember, so when we got home, I prayed with my mom to ask Jesus into my heart. I was overcome with emotion and felt like a burden had been lifted off my shoulders! At that moment I knew that Jesus lived in me and I was going to heaven. I could have never imagined that the fear of hell would soon return to haunt me for most of my life.
When I was getting ready to graduate from 8th grade and prepare for high school, I faced a dissatisfaction for the first time in my relationship with God. I remember feeling grieved that the way I was living was hurting God’s heart. One Sunday morning I was sitting in church and prayed for forgiveness for the way I had been living and treating people. I made a commitment to Jesus that day that I would begin seeking Him out. However, I made a tragic mistake in that I began reading and studying end times/apocalyptic literature; I was fascinated at the time with whether or not we were living near the second coming of Christ. For those of you who have read these books or are familiar with the Left Behind Series, you know that the violence and anger of God is the emphasis here. Basically, he levels the physical earth and kills billions of people who are unwilling to come into relationship with Him (would you want a relationship with someone like that?). I now believe this to be a serious misunderstanding of the book of Revelation – a writing filled with cryptic symbols – but at that time I swallowed whatever those authors wrote. I was obsessed with it. This was the beginning of my fear of God’s wrath and losing my salvation. I was terrified that I would be either “left behind” at the Rapture or cast into Hell at the final judgment. Make no mistake. Much of the confusion about Hell comes from taking this last book of the Bible literally.
Like I said, the stage was set. As I progressed through high school I became a raging fundamentalist. I threatened classmates with Hell if they didn’t turn to Christ, promising them assurance of heaven if they would only repent. The most ridiculous thing about all this was that I was unsure myself as to my own fate! I became very rigid and legalistic. I took everything in the Bible literally and believed that God was angry – very angry. I used to make the “end times” the focus of the discussion in our Bible club. I taught how God was offering America the opportunity to repent and avoid judgment so that a spiritual revival could sweep the nation. I believed that the “foolish” people I went to school with were going to incur the wrath of God for rejecting Christ and laughing at the Christian group I started. The saddest irony was that back when I rededicated my life to God, the thing that upset me most was the way I had been treating my peers, but now, after becoming more “committed to God,” I was actually treating them worse than before, this time excusing my uncaring words in the guise of “Biblical truth” and “faithfulness to God.” Pretty crazy, huh? I developed a vision of God as a monster and became one myself. This is what happens when people have a view of God where He is punitive and willing to subject His creatures to an eternity of torment in the depths of the fiery pit.
My judgmental attitude made me highly critical and judgmental not only of non-Christian people, but of other Christians too. I preached a hell, fire, and brimstone gospel and put down other Christians who weren’t as committed as me (or so I thought), who didn’t have the same theology as me, or didn’t have enough faith to believe the message and share it with others. This continued through most of my early college career. I was a tried and true legalist to the core, but the funny thing about it is the more fervent I became about the Bible and what I thought was God’s holiness, the less assurance of my salvation I had. The truth is that my fundamentalism was ultimately fueled by the uncertainty of my own heart. I felt constantly defeated in my own efforts to live up to what I thought were God’s standards. The strain that I felt from feeling like God was going to send me to hell if I didn’t think, feel, or do X, Y, and Z was beginning to bear its ugly fruit in my life as I grew increasingly depressed.
It would get worse as the months passed. One day I was reading a book by one crazy author in which he said that there was nothing in the Bible that said we needed to be loved. Love is something we desire. Not something we need. What we really need is to be holy! And not only do we need it, but God demands it. It was nice to experience love from God, he contended, but being made into a holy person was what really mattered and you didn’t need to feel loved for that to happen (see the series entitled Our Loving God if this is the kind of nonsense you were brainwashed to believe at any point). After all, it would do you no good to go through your whole life feeling like God loved you if this would lead you to believe the mistaken notion that because He loved you He didn’t still require you to be holy, right? He claimed it was better to live life without love and end up in heaven than to live with it and end up in hell!!! Can you believe that?!?!? Pathetically, this ludicrous statement fit in with my view of God and Hell at the time. I fretted that maybe it was true. Maybe feeling like I wanted God to love me was distracting me from my pursuit of “holiness”. Avoiding hell now became an obsession (and yes, MANY Christians – especially of the most conservative, fundamentalist type – believe this either explicitly or implicitly. Read what they write and you will be shocked)!
Not too long after engaging in such “uplifting devotional reading” I began experiencing panic attacks. I would wake up in the middle of the night clutching my chest, trying to catch my breath. I was terrified that if I died in my sleep I was going to go straight to Hell. One afternoon, in the throes of feeling like a failure that just couldn’t get it right and would never make heaven, I said aloud in complete honesty for the first time something that I had been feeling for months, something to the effect of “I’m so sorry God, I know you really want me to be holy, but I really need you to love me!” I cannot stop myself from getting emotional as I write that statement, because it breaks my heart to look back and think that I felt God could be so unmercifully cruel. I was constantly terrified of going to Hell and in the midst of my fear, I was living in it already.
I want you to be dead honest with me (and yourself) about something. Does it bother you, at any level, that, according to traditional conservative theology, probably somewhere around 90-95% of people ever born on this planet are going to end up in Hell? I mean, even a little bit? If you really can be honest, you would have to admit that it does. If it doesn’t, then either you don’t really believe it deep down, or you are a very cold-hearted person. Think about it. If you meet 100 people in the course of the day, 95 of them are supposed to spend eternity (that’s forever and ever and ever…) in a place devoid of all hope, all love, all grace, and which is the very definition of personal suffering. How could such an idea not bother you?!? Truth is, this teaching bothers most people, even among those who believe it. It bothers conservatives so much that they will hardly ever talk about it, even from the pulpit. You find a traditional evangelical church on any given Sunday and see how many of them preach a sermon on Hell. See how many even mention it in their gospel presentations! That’s right, in the very message that they say people need to believe in order to avoid Hell, they don’t even mention it!! Oh sure, they’ll talk about “being separated from God,” but come on, folks, that’s so vague. But don’t be mistaken – the ambiguity is on purpose. They are afraid to tell you the “truth.” They are afraid to tell you that if you fail to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then, according to their theology, you will go to Hell. That is, unending, conscious torment and suffering with absolutely no hope of escape. Whether the fires are literal or not we’re talking about unimaginable agony that goes on forever and ever and ever and ever…
Ok, you get the point. I mean, seriously, who are they trying to fool besides themselves? These people claim that they love non-Christian people so much and yet they are afraid of giving them the whole story? Why dance around it? We have no problem telling people who smoke that they’re going to die of lung cancer. We have no problem telling people who drink too much that they are going to get cirrhosis of the liver. We have no problem telling people who are really overweight that they are going to die of a heart attack. We do these things because we love them and we don’t want them to suffer these fates. Yet, these are nowhere close to the tragedy of spending an eternity in Hell, right? So, why the hesitancy? Why are they trying to sugarcoat it? The truth is that it is psychologically impossible to live a full, happy life while simultaneously entertaining the thought that most of a person’s loved ones, neighbors, and friends will, should they die today, face a torture that defies the imagination. Oh, and don’t forget about how quickly the pews would empty and the offerings drop off if they started telling people they were going to Hell. You see, it’s no longer popular to threaten people will torment in the afterlife. However, if you really believe this is going to happen and you claim to love people, then it is your responsibility to tell them the whole truth. Am I wrong?
At this point in the article, a fundamentalist may be ready to jump up and shout “Amen! You go T.J!” I hate to bust his bubble, but I’m not writing this article in order to motivate conservatives to start preaching about Hell, but to point to the fact that their lack of preaching on the subject either means that they don’t care or that they don’t really believe it. Or, perhaps, at some level, they’re just keeping their fingers crossed and hoping that it’s not true. You see, they’re suffering from the cognitive dissonance that is caused by believing in a loving God on one hand and yet believing He is capable of sending 95% of the precious people He created to utter destruction and despair without an ounce of mercy. They are haunted by a seemingly unexplainable paradox in their theology: that the God who lovingly nurtures us might send our children into a perpetual, inextinguishable fire. You see, they know this deep down inside, and because they can’t reconcile it, they repress it and avoid it.
|
On May 28 2011 01:19 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:16 zul wrote: I always found Religion did more harm than good and this is a perfect example for it. As long as religion is a strictly personal matter I`m absolutly fine with it, but when it has influence on other people lives it is too much. I am currently reading "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins and I recommend everybody to read it. On the other side everybody should read the Bible/Koran as well, because it is always better to have an opinion about things you have informed yourself about.
I feel so sorry for the Boy in this story for what his parents did to him. I mean there are a lot of idiots out there, but when science fiction or fantasy storys (as all religious storys are) cause hate, mistrust and devide people instead of uniting them, they simply need to vanish. Time for Atheists to petition their governments to get rid of Christians working as doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, engineers. Yes Christians are in the workplace and yes they have ulterior motives: they want to love you and intercede for you, that God may have mercy on your soul before Last Day. Nothing is more important to a genuine Christian than to see his friends, mates, colleagues and family come to maturity in Christ Jesus Amen. Hi Jesus. When I was in Texas, several crazy "christians" there were quite spiteful that I liked Starcraft and shooter games (apparently they were fine with CoD when I asked if they thought it was bad... because you, as US / UK forces, kill arabs and russians in that game lol).
Do you think that a man playing video games is bad, specifically military-scenario shooters and RTS? I don't want to "burn in hell" according to fanatics because I have a hobby I've had for most of my life.
|
On May 28 2011 01:05 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:59 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with " and why is that?" and you would have the next task. Physics does a decent job of explaining rules. but not where they come from. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer. e: added stuff Nope he has it right to some degree, in a dichotomy : 1) I believe in god 2) I lack the belief in god there is no third logical position unless you don't even know what you are thinking, but than there is a different problem. You are thinking about : 1) There is a god 2) There is no god in this case the third position "I don't know" exists. But even in that case it is not really a good position. As for the questions about meaning. Are you sure those are actually sensible questions. There are many gramatically correct questions that are nonsensical and I suspect most questions about meaning of life and universe are of the same nature. That our language allows us to construct a question does not mean that question has an answer or even makes sense. Let me put it this way: 1) I believe that everything just randomly appeared with a pretty descent set of rules of physics. 2) I lack the believe that everything just randomly appeared with a pretty descent set of rules of physics. You see that you can see it from a different point of view. And too me both concerns are vivid and require faith. So I don't think about it. and to the person who said something about easter bunnies. Why don't you get that the world is kind of a wonder and pretty cool for pure randomness and there might exist a point of view where the absence of higher entities is just as unlikely as a god. There are enough points scientist will never explain.
Isn't this enough? Just this..world? Just this? Beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable natural world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap man-mad myths and monsters? If you're so into your Shakespeare, lend me your ear: To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw perfume on the violet, is just fucking silly. Or something like that.
-Tim Minchin.
I take the viewpoint that the religious edge actually diminishes beauty in the world. And inquisitiveness. After all if "god did it" is the answer to everything it creates a very stifling environment intellectually. And it cheapens the environment.
Surprised at the number of people in the thread who are calling out the kid as a "douchebag" when he obeyed your law, a law which you should be very happy you have lest your country come under the heel of theocracy (even though religion is huge there already and has a massive influence). And theocracy is just as bad as communism and fascism. There's a reason Orwell said that all dictatorships at their heart are theocratic.
|
I'd like to point out something to everyone claiming: because theists believe that a god is there, they must provide proof. I would argue that proof is in consciousness and enlightenment, but you don't have to agree of course. The proof is more importantly in death. The theory I had when I was once atheist is that when I died I would dissipate into nothingness, or at least my consciousness would. I've experienced things in my life now that make me strongly believe otherwise.
Everyone will die, the question of religion is what will be the nature of ourselves when we die. Atheism cannot say what will happen when we die, so why is it more logical to presume there will be no god when we reach that point?
|
On May 28 2011 01:27 SolidZeal wrote: I'd like to point out something to everyone claiming: because theists believe that a god is there, they must provide proof. I would argue that proof is in consciousness and enlightenment, but you don't have to agree of course. The proof is more importantly in death. The theory I had when I was once atheist is that when I died I would dissipate into nothingness, or at least my consciousness would. I've experienced things in my life now that make me strongly believe otherwise.
Everyone will die, the question of religion is what will be the nature of ourselves when we die. Atheism cannot say what will happen when we die, so why is it more logical to presume there will be no god when we reach that point? Because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
|
On May 28 2011 01:20 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote: No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule Zeus out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know.
I don't get what your point is. You kind of support what I'm saying.
Zeus and God are just words for a higher entity. Both with strange habits.
So yeah, maybe Thor's the way to go.
WE DON'T FREAKIN know.
and again: You can refuse to answer a yes or no question even if the answers rule each other out. And that's a third position. You don't have to chose sides.
Just because you think higher entities, afterlife and all that jazz is highly unlikely, it does not mean everybody has to think the same.
Same applies to religion.
To deal with the dilemma you just don't answer. If you ask somebody a question and he doesn't answer, how would you describe his points of view to somebody else other than "he didn't say". Right, you can't even though it was a yes or no question.
|
There are so many atheists everywhere, and there is prayer at almost every public graduation. I understand what this student tried to do, but I highly doubt it was worth it and I think he would think so too.
|
On May 28 2011 01:21 proxY_ wrote: I just have to shake my head at the people that are calling this kid a smartass, it's a very hard thing to grow up in the bible belt in the US in a religious family and at the same time shun religion. Believe me I know what it's like.
When I was 9 years old in vacation bible school the youth pastor tells all the kids that one day you'll have to give your life to christ and it's something that we can do today. I remember thinking that I could never do that at that point. I remember praying every night when I was a little kid and going through like a 20 - 30 person list of people asking god to protect each one of them because I thought that if I missed someone they would die. When I was 13-14 after going to church pretty much weekly my entire life and being part of a very religious family, I came to the personal decision that this was nonsensical and I wasn't going to buy into it anymore. It took me three years to tell my family (just my immediate family) and I did it in the heat of an argument. While they fortunately didn't disown me we haven't broached the subject since and I know that they like to think that I was just trying to get under their skin. I still talk to my religious grandmother pretty often and I make up stories about going to church because she's worried about the well being of my eternal soul.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in the US and especially in the evangelical bordering on radical religious culture that encompass parts of it, coming out as an atheist is a very hard thing to do. The only reason that we don't see more discrimination of atheists is because it's a pretty easy thing to hide, unlike discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. The most under-represented group in government right now is probably atheists as I don't believe that any confirmed atheists hold any national elected positions (though I'm sure there are plenty of closet ones). It was a really big deal when Obama mentioned non-believers in his inauguration speech.
So going back to this situation in particular, when a public institution like a high school officially endorses a christian prayer or christian ritual it demeans people who don't believe in it. It feels like it's effectively saying that this is the correct thing and if you don't believe or go with this then you're wrong. It's not just non-believers who are harmed by this, it's every other faith. Maybe that's not the intent of the prayer but it's certainly a by-product of it.
This kid is an absolute hero to stand up to this and I will defend him all day because I understand why he feels the way he feels. I hope that if I ever get put in a similar situation in the workplace or wherever I'll have the guts to stand up and say wait a minute this is wrong.
Having to call yourself an atheist or throw it around all over the place is pointless as it is. I don't believe in any of the religious junk either, if somebody asks i'll just tellem the religion i was born it but that i'm not a good christian.
If everybody stands up in offensive ways for what they believe no good will ever come, do what you want and don't cause yourself trouble, doubt anybody would have given a crap if he just didn't show at the prayer. When you go against some people's ritual they will be pissed and they will counteratack that is NOT what the smarter person will want...ever. And remember it doesn't matter if that shit was "ilegal" laws are interpretable, if that thing had been a tradition for many years, that's enough to know it's a dumb move to try and ruin it for those people.
|
On May 28 2011 01:23 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:09 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:08 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:03 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:00 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:48 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote: [quote]
Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism.
But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist.
Unless you can show me proof for either.
Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Wow, you managed to completely not understand the post you were replying to :| Do you believe in god? If yes, you are theist. If no, you are atheist = lack of belief. It's nothing to do with likeliness or the possibility of the supernatural. I don't know why I HAVE to choose a side. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. And that's a legit position to me, cause we can't know. And by saying "Hey, but it is just more likely that there is no god" and thus makin me an atheist, because I say "I don't know", you judge the likeliness. You just assume that my "I don't know" implies my lack of faith which is just plain wrong. I just don't know. Nothing more, nothing less. you just say that the existence of god needs proove and not the lack of god. That's ok, but something I refuse to rate. From my point of view it is just as likely that nothing makes sense at all and is random energy (with no real origin as it seems), as that some higher entitiy made some pretty cool stuff here, and also that it is something entirely different. We'll never understand how an event horizon actually bends time to infinity or how the borders of the universe are made. Deal with it. That's just stuff our small brain can't handle, so why think of solutions and not just sit back and enjoying the right. So again, it is a third position, right in the middle where no sides exist and I just say "Leave me alone, why think about it, we're too small anyways" Alright this is a Yes or no question, it's very simple. Do you, the person I am speaking to right now, BELIEVE, that is, to hold a belief in a deity. IF YES, you are theist, IF NOT, you are an atheist, although you would be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. My position is "I CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION. cause we never will be able too, our brains are too small". So I just refuse to answer your "yes" or "no" questions due to lack of information / brain Omg, that is nonsense, you CAN answer the question. You know damn well if you believe in a deity or not. The question isn't "DOES GOD EXIST", it is "Do you believe in a God?'" they are freaking different man. No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule him out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I can't answer the "Do you believe in God question" either! Here's an analogy for you. Might not be how you see it, but for me it's kind of the same: "Do you believe that I wear pink socks right now?". How would u answer? Probably with "I don't know" cause you can't. You just don't know enough (Although pink socks might seem unlikely). I could make a guess based on my knowledge, and after that I would either hold the position of an absence of belief in your socks or vice versa. Your analogy helps me more than you honestly. Even with no knowledge I would still be left with a state of belief, or of lack of belief.
@JayJay
What you are trying to do is abstain yourself from the responsibility of holding an opinion. Either you have a belief in god or you dont have a belief in god. Saying I dont know is not a belief.
It is very different from believing in pink socks, (and the fact that you think is the same shows how shallow your analysis is) because the fact that there is a god or the fact that there isnt determines your life in ways pink socks will never do.
|
On May 28 2011 01:27 SolidZeal wrote: I'd like to point out something to everyone claiming: because theists believe that a god is there, they must provide proof. I would argue that proof is in consciousness and enlightenment, but you don't have to agree of course. The proof is more importantly in death. The theory I had when I was once atheist is that when I died I would dissipate into nothingness, or at least my consciousness would. I've experienced things in my life now that make me strongly believe otherwise.
Everyone will die, the question of religion is what will be the nature of ourselves when we die. Atheism cannot say what will happen when we die, so why is it more logical to presume there will be no Zeuswhen we reach that point?
|
On May 28 2011 01:29 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:20 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote: No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule Zeus out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I don't get what your point is. You kind of support what I'm saying. Zeus and God are just words for a higher entity. Both with strange habits. So yeah, maybe Thor's the way to go. WE DON'T FREAKIN know. and again: You can refuse to answer a yes or no question even if the answers rule each other out. And that's a third position. You don't have to chose sides. Just because you think higher entities, afterlife and all that jazz is highly unlikely, it does not mean everybody has to think the same. Same applies to religion. To deal with the dilemma you just don't answer. If you ask somebody a question and he doesn't answer, how would you describe his points of view to somebody else other than "he didn't say". Right, you can't even though it was a yes or no question. Atheism is not the position that we DO KNOW don't you freakin get it? Jesus crow.
|
On May 28 2011 01:29 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:20 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote: No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule Zeus out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I don't get what your point is. You kind of support what I'm saying.
My point is, a five year old kid can tell you that Zeus is just Greek fiction. Yet you seem to think that a fictional book like the Bible and its fictional main character somehow holds enough weight for you to say you don't know.
I could write a book right now claiming that the God of the universe is a penis, and you'd have to say you didn't know if what I wrote could be real or not.
|
On May 28 2011 01:27 SolidZeal wrote: I'd like to point out something to everyone claiming: because theists believe that a god is there, they must provide proof. I would argue that proof is in consciousness and enlightenment, but you don't have to agree of course. The proof is more importantly in death. The theory I had when I was once atheist is that when I died I would dissipate into nothingness, or at least my consciousness would. I've experienced things in my life now that make me strongly believe otherwise.
Everyone will die, the question of religion is what will be the nature of ourselves when we die. Atheism cannot say what will happen when we die, so why is it more logical to presume there will be no god when we reach that point?
I'd like to point out something to everyone claiming: because Buddhists believe that reincarnation is there, they must provide proof. I would argue that proof is in consciousness and enlightenment, but you don't have to agree of course. The proof is more importantly in death. The theory I had when I was once Christian is that when I died I would go to Heaven, or at least my spirit would. I've experienced things in my life now that make me strongly believe otherwise.
Everyone will die, the question of Buddhism is what will be the nature of ourselves when we reincarnate. Christianity cannot say what will happen when we reincarnate, so why is it more logical to presume there will be no reincarnation when we reach that point?
See how silly your logic is.
|
On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith.
It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith.
Faith isn't synonymous with a deity. You can have faith in many things outside of them.
|
On May 28 2011 01:31 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:29 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:20 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote: No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule Zeus out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I don't get what your point is. You kind of support what I'm saying. Zeus and God are just words for a higher entity. Both with strange habits. So yeah, maybe Thor's the way to go. WE DON'T FREAKIN know. and again: You can refuse to answer a yes or no question even if the answers rule each other out. And that's a third position. You don't have to chose sides. Just because you think higher entities, afterlife and all that jazz is highly unlikely, it does not mean everybody has to think the same. Same applies to religion. To deal with the dilemma you just don't answer. If you ask somebody a question and he doesn't answer, how would you describe his points of view to somebody else other than "he didn't say". Right, you can't even though it was a yes or no question. Atheism is not the position that we DO KNOW don't you freakin get it? Jesus crow.
But you DO rule higher entities out.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2]
Sounds to me, that you seems to know something I don't. Or at least believe something. Even though you say that there has yet to be a prove, I say it is as questionable what has to be proved as what exist and what not. I refuse to say "I believe in god" and I also refuse to say "I deny god's existence".
I obviously got a different opinion then you have. You might want to argue. But why argue with "I don't know"
|
On May 28 2011 01:27 SolidZeal wrote: I'd like to point out something to everyone claiming: because theists believe that a god is there, they must provide proof. I would argue that proof is in consciousness and enlightenment, but you don't have to agree of course. The proof is more importantly in death. The theory I had when I was once atheist is that when I died I would dissipate into nothingness, or at least my consciousness would. I've experienced things in my life now that make me strongly believe otherwise.
Everyone will die, the question of religion is what will be the nature of ourselves when we die. Atheism cannot say what will happen when we die, so why is it more logical to presume there will be no god when we reach that point?
I've a question for the atheists though. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist, the definition saying nothing about whether they believe in a life after death.
So, are you still an atheist if you believe that you would still retain your conciousness after death? For example: a)Wandering the mortal plane as a ghost b)Recycled into another living organism
|
On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote: It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith.
Faith isn't synonymous with a deity. You can have faith in many things outside of them.
The part I have bolded is a load of crap, science does not claim that everything can be explained. It is possible that some things cannot be explained, whether yet or ever. It obviously suits your argument to claim that science claims to be able to answer all the questions.
|
On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote: [quote]
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith.
The fact that all religions can be pinpointed to a conception of creation is proof enough. People say that Scientology is ridiculous because it was created in 1952, but in a thousand years it will be no different from Christianity.
|
|
|
|