Question for Christians.

[evoDRichie]

no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole

[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.

[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]

^ 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.

[z31maniac]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[devon.818]

wait, funfgan is saying religion is good for humanity and helps societies? so how do you explain all those crusades in the name of the catholic church? they killed all those people to help them? being dead was better for them being non-catholics? oh thats rights, the catholic church knows whats best for everyone instead of people knowing whats best for themselves, forgot.

[smooth]

Those quotes from Luther in regards to reason are taken out of context. His writing on reason is referencing religious people trying to reason and/or obtain salvation through their own means (works) whereas Luther's belief, which would become Lutheran doctrine, is that salvation is by grace alone.

Remember that Luther is a Catholic who is writing to the church about what he sees the church doing wrong according to his understanding of the bible. He's not talking to non-believers. There was not the current science vs. religion paradigm when he was writing, no atheism as we know it now, and people capable of reading and writing would have been part of an established religion.

He's writing to the papacy about in ineffectiveness of its human reasoning not writing to the masses that they shouldn't think for themselves. His eventual break from the church actually opened the doors for the masses to gain control over their own ability to talk directly to a deity (instead of relying on the priest classes as had been the case previously) and to read a common language religious text (contrary to services conducted in latin).

The reformation was an example of what you'd like to see, people breaking from dogma and thinking for themselves and eventually stabilizing their communities, so Luther is an example of the opposite of what you're using his behavior and writing to indicate.

[mar1t1me]

We don't have to be physically the best creation (which is also a big miracle itself... The complexity/functioning of our bodies are enough to believe in Gods presence. To think we just happened to shape into our bodies from thin air is ignorance in my opinion), but like mentioned before we are valued as a creation for our worship to God on our own free will. Angels for example are created ONLY for the worship of God, with no other purpose for their lives..

And yes, physically we may be lacking amongst other creations, but you don't see dogs prostrating to God such as (some) humans. That's why we are labeled the best of creation.. If you're not impressed, then by all means, one-up Him.

No scientist has ever put forth the notion that we were created out of thin air. They leave that to the slavish believers of myth, who I would agree, display ignorance in their assertions that an invisible "god" created everything.

One-up billions of years of development? Nope. How about you explain why the genomes of ALL life on Earth are so amazingly similar. And "because my god made it that way" won't cut it. And I'm sure science would love to interview an angel, but so far, no one has been able to locate one. That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed as easily.

So you think Human nature alone would put us off better w/ out religion? Honestly. Look at the ghetto's and places where religion is just lacking. Are they more peaceful, better people? No. Nobody can even reason that religion is the cause of pain. Take any of the crusades for example, they were purely human error in the name of religion. Now, Islam preaches violence in the name of Allah, but thats not what I'm talking about. Human error is what accounts for much of the useless violence in Christian history. Thats not even beginning to look at all the other religions, or those who persecute AGAINST Christians, and are killing them for their belief.

Let's look at that another way. Has religion ever been shown to stabilize society on its own merits, without its use as a potent threat? Look at the sectarian violence in many parts of the world that rage on for decades. The Nigerians and their burning of children as witches...something happening here in the 21st century, borne of rampant Christian superstition cloaked as "God's Will". Look at the various turf squabbles over supposedly "holy" lands. Look at the desire, and even, in fact, need for religions throughout history to violently quash the seeds of free-thought and free expression. Martin Luther himself, the father of Protestantism said "reason is the Devil's Harlot". The problem in the ghettos of the world cannot and will not be solved by religion, no more than secular humanism caused them. Human error? I've heard it said that "in the absence of religion you will observe good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But to make good people do truly horrifying things absolutely requires religion."

It comes down to this: either you believe that every word of the Bible (or Q'uran which is loosely derived from the same hand-me-down texts) is God's own, including the consent to own slaves, rape and torture of women and children, and all the other trappings of a manifestation of human-desired power over others, or you don't. And if you don't believe God hates it when you wear fabric blends (Lev.19:19) or moving to the NT, don't believe Jesus commanded believers to sell all their possessions, give the money to the poor, and preach the gospel.(Matt. 19:21), then how can you claim to be a true believer? Aren't you just another lukewarm soul who can't commit himself to trust in his particular favorite all-powerful invisible deity?