Question for Christians.

[smooth]

I think your criticism is better aimed at early period catholicism, or any fanaticism/ideologues, rather than christianity or religion, in general.

without the reform movement the printing press wouldn't have been invented when it was.
religious texts were both used to justify slavery as well as provide the social impetus for abolishing slavery.
early christian texts were relatively emancipatory in regards to women's civil rights
Darwin's own theories were in response to his belief system and doubt. I'm not arguing he died believing in god or any kind of religious adherent, but the religious influence on his life and eventually theoretical writings can't simply be discarded because they were part of what made him who he was.

The point is that religion's influence on human development throughout history, both positive and negative, can't be denied or disentangled from one another. It's simply not possible or even helpful to argue for a world without religious belief.

On the whole I'd have to say we're better of now than we were 100 years ago, 1000 years, and 10,000 years ago and we can't argue that it's in spite of religion.

[cale]

Extremely relevant



Man's ability for the acquisition, intelligent processing and adaptation to knowledge is IMO our greatest strength. Failing to utilize those abilities to their full potential or taking it for granted is a shame and a disgrace.

[ck_taft325is]

Extremely relevant



Man's ability for the acquisition, intelligent processing and adaptation to knowledge is IMO our greatest strength. Failing to utilize those abilities to their full potential or taking it for granted is a shame and a disgrace.

And considering yourself above something or alternatively something below yourself is just the same. A shameful disgrace.

Including your obvious distaste for religion or "belief" if you will. I don't like Religion. I don't mind belief and follow things with a grain of "I might not be able to ever rectify everything that goes on around me with "intelligent processing and adaption".

[cale]

I do find religion to limit the potential of individuals and groups, all one needs to do is go back through history or even modern day and compare secular to non-secular societies and their success/contributions to science. The same can be said for individuals, a huge percentage of acclaimed intellectuals and scientiests fall into the non-theist category, it's not coincedental. I don't consider myself above anyone, but I do think some people are limited in their ability to apply sound logic to certain topics and have allowed theistic beliefs to sway them from that which can be proven or at least backed up with evidence.

How is it shameful for me to point that out when it is questioned of me or relevent to a discussion? I don't go making threads bashing theists, I simply add my opinions to ones which are already going..and try to keep it civil.

[z31maniac]

I do find religion to limit the potential of individuals and groups, all one needs to do is go back through history or even modern day and compare secular to non-secular societies and their success/contributions to science.

Do some research on the Islamic "Golden Age" and you might find some info to counteract your assertion.

[cale]

Im familiar with the Islamic worlds contributions to math, medicine and othe specific areas of science. It needs to be noted though that despite a conclusive cause for its end, some blame needs to be put on European non-secular interference. That combined with modern comparisons shows that secularity and non-theism does indeed correlate to advances in scientific knowledge.

[ck_taft325is]

I do find religion to limit the potential of individuals and groups, all one needs to do is go back through history or even modern day and compare secular to non-secular societies and their success/contributions to science. The same can be said for individuals, a huge percentage of acclaimed intellectuals and scientiests fall into the non-theist category, it's not coincedental. I don't consider myself above anyone, but I do think some people are limited in their ability to apply sound logic to certain topics and have allowed theistic beliefs to sway them from that which can be proven or at least backed up with evidence.

How is it shameful for me to point that out when it is questioned of me or relevent to a discussion? I don't go making threads bashing theists, I simply add my opinions to ones which are already going..and try to keep it civil.

Trollolololllolooololooloololololollolol.



Sure.

You would inventively create loop holes and excuses for not seeing the Good faith has done the world and pander it entirely on the shoulders of "religion" which is a disgrace unto itself. I'm sure you think you're being Civil but unless you can respect another's right to view the world or heaven forbid their own personal convictions, as they wish (as long as this does not interfere with another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) I don't see how you can claim to do so "civilly". Or are you drawing a distinction between civil and respectful? If that's the case, there's already a monumental gap in your perspective. If you don't understand this, then I'm sorry, I can't make you see the truth nor continue discussion as there's nothing to discuss.

I have no issue with Atheists anymore than I do with Christians. When either view becomes militant to the exclusion of another's rights or freedoms, I of course feel strongly either way. If an Atheist can be secure in his claim that he genuinely feels nothing for any deity or "after life" and can do so without forcing his claim of such on others, cool beans. Party on, man. Let's have a beer. It's the same struggle I find with Christian's. Christ never said go bug the shit out of everyone. Why does it matter if so and so doesn't (or does for that matter) go to Church and believe in God? Get the fuck over it and stop putting intellectual stipulations on those with different views. Honestly, you're doing nothing but what the hard core, Bible thumping cultists do. Just in reverse. Again, if you can't see that, then there's no reason for you to participate or even continue a discussion about either.

You've missed the point. Both sides.

[z31maniac]

^You didn't leave any grammatical mistakes in that statement, did you?

[cale]

^ grow up

Trollolololllolooololooloololololollolol.



Sure.

You would inventively create loop holes and excuses for not seeing the Good faith has done the world and pander it entirely on the shoulders of "religion" which is a disgrace unto itself. I'm sure you think you're being Civil but unless you can respect another's right to view the world or heaven forbid their own personal convictions, as they wish (as long as this does not interfere with another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) I don't see how you can claim to do so "civilly". Or are you drawing a distinction between civil and respectful? If that's the case, there's already a monumental gap in your perspective. If you don't understand this, then I'm sorry, I can't make you see the truth nor continue discussion as there's nothing to discuss.

I have no issue with Atheists anymore than I do with Christians. When either view becomes militant to the exclusion of another's rights or freedoms, I of course feel strongly either way. If an Atheist can be secure in his claim that he genuinely feels nothing for any deity or "after life" and can do so without forcing his claim of such on others, cool beans. Party on, man. Let's have a beer. It's the same struggle I find with Christian's. Christ never said go bug the shit out of everyone. Why does it matter if so and so doesn't (or does for that matter) go to Church and believe in God? Get the fuck over it and stop putting intellectual stipulations on those with different views. Honestly, you're doing nothing but what the hard core, Bible thumping cultists do. Just in reverse. Again, if you can't see that, then there's no reason for you to participate or even continue a discussion about either.

You've missed the point. Both sides.

Intellectual stipulations need to be applied when an individual attempts to utilize science to prove theism, or discredit it based on religious beliefs. I don't attack people views on gods, I attack their failed attempts to apply so called logic to that which is illogical. Anyone who makes claims of knowledge when such knowledge is unattainable should be met with criticism. This is a discussion, it should include critique and not simply respecting someone's opinion for the sake of being kind.

Please show me where I have been uncivil. Pointing out shortcomings in someone's position in a debate is essential, if that is uncivil then don't go looking for opinions on matters such as these.

[smooth]

I think the point is that when someone creates a thread purporting to ask a genuine question, and the people the question is asked of don't respond for a few days, and then finally think perhaps the question is based on a genuine desire to understand something, but then when the answers are given the group is then attacked or challenged for their beliefs, at that point it seems that the questions and entire thread are disingenuous.

It's one thing to be young and still hammering out your ideas of what does or does not work in life, but it's another to bait someone into having that kind of discourse with you. The latter is how the majority of your posts come across, whether you intend it or not, so that's where christians might think you aren't being civil toward their beliefs.

The last sentence of yours highlights what I'm referring to...this thread wasn't framed as a debate on the merits or demerits of christian belief and the fact that you're treating members' responses as a debate doesn't square with your earlier claim that you're not participating in some sort of bashing but rather are just trying to engage with people in a civil manner.

When someone wants to debate that person will go to a debate class or forum, or at least put it on the table at the outset of the thread, but for the most part it doesn't seem like christians on this car forum want to debate their theological positions.

[cale]

People have expressed their opinions, I've countered them. Discussions go both ways and replies will be made, last time I checked this was a discussion forum and not just one designed for statements free from rebut. As someone who went several pages into the atheist thread I'm surprised you'd argue differently.

My opinions of Christians may come off as crass yet, but I like to get right to the point. Why should I be dishonest with myself and cushion my words for the sake of not insulting someone else? If a differing opinion insults you, then you shouldn't share your opinion to begin with. Threads progress and change, hell this is a r3v thread! If every post were directed towards the OP and nothing more not much would have been said.

To be a Christian requires one of two things. A disingenuous approach to Christianity and the Bible, picking from it what you wish and ignoring that which logic, morals or some other contributing factor has helped you decide what is or is not realistic and worth accepting. Or the other, a weak mind which allows you to ignore that which can be tested and verified for that which is handed to you through only one resource by a cult-like group. It could be a weakness due to personal desire, fear, or quite simply a lack of intellect. At the end of the day you cannot accept Christianity in it's entirety when you approach it using logic and intellect, hence the overwhelming majority of modern leading intellectuals and scientists rejecting theism all together. It's not coincidental, and don't shoot the messenger.

[evoDRichie]

no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole

[z31maniac]

Apparently some don't see the difference between:

1. Go fuck yourself.

2. Go perform a physical impossibility.


You can get to the point without being an asshole AND without being "intellectually dishonest to yourself."

For fucks sake.

[Fusion]

It's the same struggle I find with Christian's. Christ never said go bug the shit out of everyone. Why does it matter if so and so doesn't (or does for that matter) go to Church and believe in God? Get the fuck over it and stop putting intellectual stipulations on those with different views.

Helpful Not Helpful
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 ESV / 37 helpful votes

And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

2 John 1:9-11 ESV / 29 helpful votes

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

The whole bible is based on reward and punishment, aka a form of psychological tyranny. If you want a child to do something he/she dislikes, you can either reward him or make up a form of (usually mild - no Xbox) psychological punishment. Believe = heaven, doubt = hell, this is the base of most religions.
Even if an atheist were to bug a christian about this topic, he can't threaten him with punishment. Atheism isn't based on the punishment of those who don't agree. The only thing an atheist can do is get theists to logically think about things that are a taboo to them, outside the box, and the reason a theist feels uncomfotable is because a discussion like that is near punishment for the theist.

People often say governments are most powerful when the people are in fear. I agree, but it's no surprise to me, because the creators of religions thought this through way before any goverment was formed and now have hundreds of millions of followers. Governments would have to be crazy not to imply a plan so successful.

[smooth]

No, Fusion, atheist do use a similar system of what you call "psychological punishment" and anyone reading these threads can see the basic formula:

prioritize "logic"
label theists as illogical
the further away a theist is from agreeing with the atheist, then degrade the theist on the basis for lack of logic
the closer the theist is to agreeing with the atheist, then approve of the theist as finally making sense

similar method of acceptance vs. shame