|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
posted March 31, 2010 05:38 PM |
|
|
once the brain is dead that's pretty much it
so yes, since you don't exist you can't acknowledge the world
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 05:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ellodin, your last post presented the first 100% lie I've seen in this topic. Here it is:
Quote:
And you make up a lie about what the Bible says.
Here is a lie too:
Quote:
You have presented no valid arguments.
So, I suggest you apologize. I suspect you should feel guilt otherwise.
Quote:
Sorry, but I've never just said "sorry" for an argument. I give reasoned points to address the things people say.
Look up the quote that got the "Trolling?" answer from me.
I don't have to look up the word "trolling." I just look at your posts to see examples of it. Yes, you made up a lie about that the Bible teaches and were unable to back it up. When you make up a lie about the Bible's teachings expect to be challenged to defend your position.
Unfortunately I have found that most of the active atheist/anti-Christian posters have no interest in actual truth about what the Bible/a religion teaches. They seeminly are interested only in attacking it even with lies.
The entire reason I started posting in the OSM was I got sick of seeing atheists lie about religion and religious people.
If you are unable to defend your positions perhaps you should rethink your stance.
____________
Revelation
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 05:39 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 21:20, 31 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
to my mind, we don't live on in spirit, but we live on in legacy. if we do something with our lives, we are remembered through our deeds, or family, or actions and our way of life. I suppose we gain immortality when we become remembered for doing something extraordinary.
I have a friend who thinks just like you, and I don't get it. Being remembered does not make anyone exist, and I don't get what's so great about being remembered. I find it good to be help others, because I try to think of others to be as important as my self, as I assume others to exist and be existing, as well, however I don't really care if anyone remembers me and most of all, I'd like to be forgotten and anonymous. It brings me nothing that people are grateful for my acts.
I understand, you do it because you think it's the right thing to do, and I do to. However, what I am saying is that we don't know whether there is a soul or a spirit, so, as far as we can tell, the only way to remain immortal is in legacy.
in some way's, I would prefer it this way, as people will remember what I have done, and thus my actions now matter.
Quote:
Quote:
the idea that most religions toute is Eternal life. to me, that is no reward. yeah, it might be great in the first million years, but what about after that, everyone dying around you, no long lasting friendships, you would become a spectre made flesh. and you've still got an eternity after that, and after that, and after that. It would be a greatest curse every visited upon a sentient being (unless you want to insult everyone in the universe).
I think the idea is that everyone lives forever, secondly I doubt the way you imagine the future would be true, as we keep on progressing in technology, I see no reason why those problem should exist even with the technology of today.
I don't really have a fixed idea on the future. It could go completely star trek where everything is ordered and military in exploration, or it could go Transmetropolitian where the free market has gone mad with technology. one future is no more valid than the other.
Quote:
Quote:
Finite life gives us meaning, gives us urgency, gives us purpose. It makes our lifes worth something, and if we only have one shot at life, then we need to grasp it as tightly as possible.
I completely disagree, I don't need a finite life span, nor risks of my life, to make my life valueable. The things that make my life valueable, is independent of risk of lack. Also remember, we're generally nothing more than chemicals in the brain, ideas of boredom, etc. makes little sense in a future where we can create whatever chemical reaction (thereby emotional response) as we please.
Or in principle create our own just as real as our reality, reality.
so basically, you are saying that in the future, we get to moderate our own emotions outside of what we do already... is it just me or does that sound very sinister.
Quote:
Quote:
Am I worried about what happens after I die? of course I am. but fear of the unknown should not hold us back from our own ambitious and adventures. When my time has come, I will greet death with open arms.
Quote:
to you [harry], it may seem tragic, but to people like nicholas, it's like going to sleep after a very, very long day. after all, death is the next big adventure.
-dumbledore, truly off his rocker.
I think you miss an essentiel point here. In harry potter, there's an after life, after all harry did meet dumbledore once again. However, if there's truely nothing, there's no adventure, no afterlife, no observations for you to make and nothing for you to decide upon, heck you aren't even there.
But we don't know until the inevitable happens. it is the great unknown, the great gamble, we could end up with the same, more, less, nothing or everything. it is the next big adventure.
edit: really, Elodin, this stuff I had to respond to.
Quote:
I don't have to look up the word "trolling." I just look at your posts to see examples of it. Yes, you made up a lie about that the Bible teaches and were unable to back it up. When you make up a lie about the Bible's teachings expect to be challenged to defend your position.
great rhetoric, mate. what are you, twelve?
also, you've lied multiple times about what atheists have said, and when we challenge you on it, with facts and figures, I might add, you say we are persecuting you for you're beliefs, and not actually back up you're statement.
appeals to emotion do not work here, elodin, nor do appeals to authority. only appeals to reason.
Quote:
Unfortunately I have found that most of the active atheist/anti-Christian posters have no interest in actual truth about what the Bible/a religion teaches. They seeminly are interested only in attacking it even with lies.
It's interesting you take this stuff to heart. after all, according to you, Christians don't rape, kill, hate, or anything that we have accused christians of. if they are blameless, why bother taking it to heart, you know better.
and if we attack it with lies, you've certainly attacked us with a fair few fibs yourself.
Quote:
The entire reason I started posting in the OSM was I got sick of seeing atheists lie about religion and religious people.
stop white knighting for you're all-powerful deity, Elodin. he's all powerful, he can take a few insults.
we were not talking about religious people in general, we were pointing out specific cases of where people, who are part of that religion, have done wrong, Like the most reason case with catholic priests found molesting deaf choir boys. instantly, according to you, they are not christian, because they do these deeds.
so, using the very same logic you are using, I can declare that Mao, pol pot, and Stalin were not atheists. they did it to besmurch the name of atheism. the reason why they are not is that they demanded that people worship them instead, thus making them believe themselves to be objects of worship, and an atheist rejects all worship.
read that back and tell me what you think. Remember, it's you're logic.
Quote:
If you are unable to defend your positions perhaps you should rethink your stance.
yes... yes you should. I agree on that.
you...er... you might want to lead by example, there.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 03:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
so, using the very same logic you are using, I can declare that Mao, pol pot, and Stalin were not atheists. they did it to besmurch the name of atheism. the reason why they are not is that they demanded that people worship them instead, thus making them believe themselves to be objects of worship, and an atheist rejects all worship.
read that back and tell me what you think. Remember, it's you're logic.
I've already made the argument but the response back is that a supposed athiest that believes themself to be a god is merely deluded and somehow that belief is only an athiest murderer with a big head, and that only loony libs defend them.
But I wasn't defending them, only showing him the weakness in his argument to try to help him come up with a better one instead of having you two repeat and insult each other ad nauseam.
Of course, mentioning that Stalin was secretly going to confession as his former bodyguards have admitted in interviews does nothing as well.
Regardless. There are flaws (and glaring grammar mistakes) on both side of the fence here.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 04:46 AM |
|
|
|
Ellodin, you continue to lie about me without even trying to find what you're saying about me in my posts.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 10:20 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:21, 01 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
also, you've lied multiple times about what atheists have said, and when we challenge you on it, with facts and figures, I might add, you say we are persecuting you for you're beliefs, and not actually back up you're statement.
That is a lie. Unfortunately the anti-Chrisians have no qualms about liying about Christainity or about me personally.
Quote:
we were not talking about religious people in general, we were pointing out specific cases of where people, who are part of that religion, have done wrong, Like the most reason case with catholic priests found molesting deaf choir boys. instantly, according to you, they are not christian, because they do these deeds.
According to Jesus they are not.
Quote:
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Quote:
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Quote:
so, using the very same logic you are using, I can declare that Mao, pol pot, and Stalin were not atheists. they did it to besmurch the name of atheism. the reason why they are not is that they demanded that people worship them instead, thus making them believe themselves to be objects of worship, and an atheist rejects all worship.
Sorry, no. They did not believe in God. They were atheists. They burned down churches, confiscated Bible, and killed people whose only crime was believing in God.
Quote:
I've already made the argument but the response back is that a supposed athiest that believes themself to be a god is merely deluded and somehow that belief is only an athiest murderer with a big head, and that only loony libs defend them.
Sorry, but Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, ect, never claimed to be God. I already quoted the evidence that shows children in the USSR were indoctrinated to ridicule religion by the school system.
Can you show me quotes from those men that have them saying they are God and demanding to be worshiped? NOPE.
Quote:
Of course, mentioning that Stalin was secretly going to confession as his former bodyguards have admitted in interviews does nothing as well.
No, because first of all, I posted a link earlier that debunks the claims that Stalin went to confesion at all after he became abandoned seminary for Marxism. I don't remember what thread that was in, but if you go back and look at my response to your post there you will see the link.
If he had actually repented in his last days he would have done so publicly and renoounced his actions as evil to the whole world.
Second, there is no way he can be considered a Christian, according to the Bible.
Thirdly, no serious historian will disagree that he was an atheist. He specificly targeted Chrisians for murder and acted against everything that it means to be a Christian.
Quote:
Ellodin, you continue to lie about me without even trying to find what you're saying about me in my posts.
Troll on dude. You appear to have no interest in the truth and just want to lie about me.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 10:57 PM |
|
|
For those of you who don't know Philip K. Dick: one of the greatest, if not THE greatest SF authors ever (and not accidentally the guy with the most stories Hollywood made movies of; Blade Runner is one, Minority Report another, and so on).
Anyway, 1955 he wrote "Eye in the Sky" which is a stunningly brilliant piece of fiction.
I really had to think about this book when reading the posts here.
I mean, just imagine, the universe was the way Elodin says it is. *shudder* And him an example of how god wants his people to be. *shudder*.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 10:23, 02 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
also, you've lied multiple times about what atheists have said, and when we challenge you on it, with facts and figures, I might add, you say we are persecuting you for you're beliefs, and not actually back up you're statement.
That is a lie. Unfortunately the anti-Chrisians have no qualms about liying about Christainity or about me personally.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Quote:
Quote:
we were not talking about religious people in general, we were pointing out specific cases of where people, who are part of that religion, have done wrong, Like the most reason case with catholic priests found molesting deaf choir boys. instantly, according to you, they are not christian, because they do these deeds.
According to Jesus they are not.
Quote:
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Quote:
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
I would also like to note that in the passages you quote, it says nowhere "is a man say, I love god, but he fiddles kiddies, then he is a liar."
 food for thought.
Quote:
Quote:
so, using the very same logic you are using, I can declare that Mao, pol pot, and Stalin were not atheists. they did it to besmurch the name of atheism. the reason why they are not is that they demanded that people worship them instead, thus making them believe themselves to be objects of worship, and an atheist rejects all worship.
Sorry, no. They did not believe in God. They were atheists. They burned down churches, confiscated Bible, and killed people whose only crime was believing in God.
No, they weren't. They demanded that they themselves be worshiped, believing them be objects of worship, thus making self-believing theists, not atheists.
It's you're logic.
Quote:
Quote:
I've already made the argument but the response back is that a supposed athiest that believes themself to be a god is merely deluded and somehow that belief is only an athiest murderer with a big head, and that only loony libs defend them.
Sorry, but Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, ect, never claimed to be God. I already quoted the evidence that shows children in the USSR were indoctrinated to ridicule religion by the school system.
Can you show me quotes from those men that have them saying they are God and demanding to be worshiped? NOPE.
you said that europe was used to worship state-gods.
also, have you seen some of the propaganda at the later part of stalin's reign?
and of mao
remember, all propaganda will have had to gone through those two for approval in their seperate countries, and so they chose those as they're pieces.
seem pretty deiterific to me.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, mentioning that Stalin was secretly going to confession as his former bodyguards have admitted in interviews does nothing as well.
No, because first of all, I posted a link earlier that debunks the claims that Stalin went to confesion at all after he became abandoned seminary for Marxism. I don't remember what thread that was in, but if you go back and look at my response to your post there you will see the link.
stop treating marxism like a religion. It ain't!
also, if you can't remember, then don't bloody well bring it up. Go back, check, then write what you have said. It's common sense to use an argument you have at you're fingertips.
Quote:
If he had actually repented in his last days he would have done so publicly and renoounced his actions as evil to the whole world.
Ah, but that is the way with proud men, they rarely consider their actions evil... and psychopaths...
comrade.
Quote:
Second, there is no way he can be considered a Christian, according to the Bible.
.. "Christians don't hate and murder."
no more than atheists.
Quote:
Thirdly, no serious historian will disagree that he was an atheist. He specificly targeted Chrisians for murder and acted against everything that it means to be a Christian.
no serious historians will disagree that the crusades where an christian movement. No serious historians will disagree that the spanish inquisition was a christian movement. No serious historians will disagree that the massacre of droughedeer was a christian movement. No serious historian will disagree that the salem witch trials were a christian movement. No serious historians will disagree that the only reason why america has become so fundie-mental-case over religion is because of the fear of communism.
leave historical argument to the historians.
Quote:
Quote:
Ellodin, you continue to lie about me without even trying to find what you're saying about me in my posts.
Troll on dude. You appear to have no interest in the truth and just want to lie about me.
troll on, Elodin. You appear to have no interest in the truth and just want to lie about everyone else.
also @jj: that is truly, truly terrifying!
oh well, we can be glad that he isn't stupid enough to be a young earth creationist.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 06:52 AM |
|
|
Ellodin,
Quote:
Troll on dude. You appear to have no interest in the truth and just want to lie about me.
Wow! Now that's an obvious trolling. I thought trolls don't write such huge posts.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 10:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quad erat demonstrandum.
It's "quod"
On a rather eerie sidenote I agree with Elodin, in the sense that a person which rapes and murders cannot, according to Christ and the Bible, be a Christian. He can declare himself as Christian, but the Bible clearly states stuff about wolves in the sheep's clothing, false prophets, hypocrites etc.
The only thing, in fact, that bothers me is the difference between killing and murdering, mentioned earlier. If I recall correctly, according to some, murder isn't very Christian, but killing can be alright - killing being, what, some sort of taking someone's life when you have no choice. But where does one draw a line? I mean, certainly, there are cases when you find your child raped with a knife under its throat so the only option is to shoot the guy, but what about... grayer cases? I don't think most murderers would admit they've murdered someone - a wife whose husband was beating her, a gangbanger shooting another gangbanger because "the laws of the streets" make him participate in gang wars, a general allowing the sacking of an enemy village because the enemy sacked a village yesterday... There are dozens of such examples. If I recall correctly, one of the hardest but most crucial things about Christianity is turning the other cheek - something no one ever seems to do, except Christ. Even in things far less important than killing/murdering someone.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 10:38 AM |
|
|
Bak, the problem is, that subjectively things tend to be unclear. There is a fine line between murder and perceived self-defence, for example. You might say, erring is human, so it is pretty obviously pretty easy to err in judgement, even (and especially) as a Christian and do something un-Christian.
History (and everyday life) is full of examples and this is neither a great mystery nor a special case.
Besides - if we'd do everything right, if there was even a possibility to do everything right and not err: why give the opportunity to repent (and don't start a discussion on repenting, please: honest repenting implies that you can err, later on see the error of your ways, repent and change them)?
A completely different question is: can a Christian WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY murder? That is, do something he/she would view as murder? I'd still say, yes: you can be a Christian, believe in heaven and hell and do something you know will make you end in hell, because you don't see any viable alternative. For example, I do think that a loving and caring mother may be willing to do a lot for her child. For example, she may cover for her (grown-up) child if he/she has done something really, really bad.
A third question is this: if you are believe you are a Christian, are you a Christian or not? And if you say, whether you are a Christian or not depends on what you DO, not what you believe, then I'd say, only god (or Christ) can judge your works and whether you lack in your Christianity or not. It would be presuming for humans to decide for god/Christ whether a person is a Christian or not.
Which is the bottom line: I don't think any human can make judgement about the believe of a person and what makes believers sin.
People CAN sin, KNOWING that they sin, STILL believe in Christ, but trust in His absolute and godly understanding.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 11:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quad erat demonstrandum.
It's "quod"
changed, thanks mate
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 11:29 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 11:36, 02 Apr 2010.
|
@Baklava. I'd also be interested that what sins would make someone a non-Christian permanently, that he can never again be a Christian?
Or is it that for the duration of the sinful period he is not a Christian but if/when he repents he again is?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 11:34 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 11:35, 02 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then how about you quote any (serious) source which says: "Agnostics don't know about if God exists or not, BUT THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW!"
Or you can just try to realize that all definition that we can give for agnostics is "Agnostics don't know" and it is their personal choice whether they care or not.
The problem here is, it would leave out a very important fact. An agnostic KNOWS, he will never know if an upper being exists (at least during his life form here on earth). And that is the main reason why an agnostic doesn't care. Maybe not because it won't bother him (he really may have some kind of interest in all the stuff about God and the universe), but more because he will never get an answer.
Theists belief in God and eagerly await some kind of evidence to show the atheists they are wrong.
Atheists would love to find a scientific answer for our existance to spit on the theists for their blind "old book following" life form.
Agnostics are beyond this step already. They "gave up" in finding evidences for any of those 2 sides. They just let it happen....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 03:03 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:07, 02 Apr 2010.
|
@bixie
Glad to be of service, old chap
@JJ
I get what you're saying, but a true Christian is, by definition, a follower of Christ's teachings. Satan believes Christ is God's son too, but he can hardly be called a Christian.
I agree, however, that the entire situation is far grayer than one may think.
@Minion
I recon that one is Christian again after truly repenting. However, if after his repent, he does the same crap again, then he wasn't really too much of a Christian in between. I suppose God decides that, as he sees what we cannot (for example, whether someone repented truly or just temporarily or hypocritically).
@Angelito
I understand what you're saying but you still cannot rationally define agnostics as not caring about the existence of a higher power as long as there is one agnostic on the planet who does. Actually, the mere fact that there are agnostics who do and who do not care implies the futility of mentioning "care" in the definition itself.
If you define agnostics as not caring about higher powers, then you need to give a name to those who acknowledge they do not know, but do care.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 03:34 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:35, 02 Apr 2010.
|
@bak
Quote:
On a rather eerie sidenote I agree with Elodin, in the sense that a person which rapes and murders cannot, according to Christ and the Bible, be a Christian. He can declare himself as Christian, but the Bible clearly states stuff about wolves in the sheep's clothing, false prophets, hypocrites etc.
That's fine, really. However, that doesn't exonerate Christianity as a potential force of evil.
By which I mean: there are people who call themselves Christians who do things which they believe Christians are supposed to do but which are "evil". For instance, consider this that was in the News yesterday:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/funeral-protests-criminal-father-slain-marine/story?id=10255885
Certainly the protesters who advocate killing homosexuals, or ones who actually kill abortion doctors, because they are (consider themselves to be) Christians and they believe God tells them to do so would be considered EVIL. It may very well be true that they are not, in actuality, Christians, by some rigorous definition*. Nevertheless, it stands that Christianity can be a force of evil because people believe that it calls them to do something which is evil.
I don't pick on Christianity here specifically. This can be true of any belief system, even ones that aren't religious. The point is that if Christianity did not exist, the evil act committed in the name of Christianity (rightly or wrongly) would also not exist. If there was no Christianity, there would not be people going around holding signs that say "Jesus Hates Fags". Whether or not the people holding those signs are Christians is another matter. I just think it's a rather glaring case of self-deception if you're going to sit there and say that Christianity (or any religion) has brought nothing bad to the world, based on the idea that once you do something bad, you're no longer a Christian. That's a pretty cheap word game to play.
There's another problem with this whole definition of a Christian thing, which I'll explain with the use of an example.
Say I am a Christian. I've never done anything bad in my life. However, my mortgage is due and I have no money. So I decide I'm going to go rob a bank. I put a gun in my coat, walk down to the bank and demand money. Suddenly, a security guard tells me to drop the gun. In a panic, my brain tells my hand to raise the gun and fire it. A few fractions of a second later, my arm raises and my finger pulls the trigger. The firing pin causes the bullet to fire. The bullet travels down the barrel of the gun, through the air, and strikes the guard in the chest. It pierces his lung and a major blood vessel. The guard falls to the ground and lives for about another hour. The guard dies.
At what point am I no longer a Christian? If your definition of a Christian is clear and unambiguous, then it should be no issue for you to pick out a specific point in time where I no longer fit the criteria. At what point to I become a murderer?
Am I a murderer once my brain issues the order to my hand to raise the gun?
Am I a murderer once my brain issues the order to my hand to pull the trigger?
Am I a murderer once the bullet is fired?
When the bullet hits the guard?
When the bullet causes damage to his organs?
When the guard actually dies?
(when his heart stops? when his brain activity ceases? what if he's revived after brain death?)
If you say: well, you become a murderer when he dies, does that mean I'm still a Christian after I fire the gun but before the guard dies? But it seems rather unChristian to fire a gun with the intent to kill, doesn't it? Or is it?
Another twist is the idea of someone coming to the guard's aid. Consider the exact same scenario, but with two different endings.
There is a doctor in the bank. In one scenario, the doctor rushes to the guard's aid and keeps him stable until the ambulance arrives. The guard lives. In the second scenario, the doctor is afraid of getting shot and he does nothing. The guard dies. Am I a Christian in scenario one (not a murderer) but not a Christian in scenario two (a murderer)? It seems rather silly for my status as Christian to be determined solely by the actions of someone else. Nothing has changed with respect to my actions, but the outcome is very different. But isn't the status of Christianity determined by my actions? How can I be a Christian in one scenario but not in the other, when my actions are the same? And what about the doctor. If he intervenes, the guard lives. If he does not, the guard dies. Is the doctor a Christian if he fails to intervene? Although he doesn't know it, his failure to intervene is directly responsible for the guard's death. Is he a murderer?
I think you see the problem that stems from trying to make definition absolute in its application.
* Assuming for the sake of argument that I agree with the concept of an objective definition of something.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 05:07 PM |
|
|
@angelitoQuote:
Atheists would love to find a scientific answer for our existance to spit on the theists for their blind "old book following" life form.
I'm an atheist and have no desire to spit on anybody. Some of my friends are religious. I consider them intelligent and good people. The vast majority of Christians are not advocates of Biblical literalism.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nevertheless, it stands that Christianity can be a force of evil because people believe that it calls them to do something which is evil.
I don't pick on Christianity here specifically. This can be true of any belief system, even ones that aren't religious. The point is that if Christianity did not exist, the evil act committed in the name of Christianity (rightly or wrongly) would also not exist.
The problem with this statement is that it can be applied to everything.
i.e. "if knives did not exist, there would be much less home murders when someone kills his wife/husband/kids swinging a kitchen knife in amok."
Which is actually logically acceptable, but pretty much heading into pointless conclusion that everything can be dangerous, misleading or brainwashing and thus it would be better to banish it.
Quote:
If there was no Christianity, there would not be people going around holding signs that say "Jesus Hates Fags". Whether or not the people holding those signs are Christians is another matter. I just think it's a rather glaring case of self-deception if you're going to sit there and say that Christianity (or any religion) has brought nothing bad to the world, based on the idea that once you do something bad, you're no longer a Christian. That's a pretty cheap word game to play.
The puzzling part is the fact that many people (even very intelligent people like you Cor - ofc if I'm wrong please correct me.) seem to think that those people would actually stay home rather than going to the same place with the same sign, only with "Jesus" swapped with Allah/Satan/Bush/Mao/The Party/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Whatever. People don't need religion, politics or in fact anything to hate. The religion, political beliefs or something else may act as catalyst, yeah... but the hatred must start within you imho. That means anything CAN trigger it. Religion became the all-time-favorite scapegoat, however.
Quote:
Say I am a Christian. I've never done anything bad in my life. However, my mortgage is due and I have no money. So I decide I'm going to go rob a bank. I put a gun in my coat, walk down to the bank and demand money. Suddenly, a security guard tells me to drop the gun. In a panic, my brain tells my hand to raise the gun and fire it. A few fractions of a second later, my arm raises and my finger pulls the trigger. The firing pin causes the bullet to fire. The bullet travels down the barrel of the gun, through the air, and strikes the guard in the chest. It pierces his lung and a major blood vessel. The guard falls to the ground and lives for about another hour. The guard dies.
At what point am I no longer a Christian? If your definition of a Christian is clear and unambiguous, then it should be no issue for you to pick out a specific point in time where I no longer fit the criteria. At what point to I become a murderer?
I don't agree with Elodin that people who do something evil aren't Christians. I think that as long as you believe in Christ (optionally: and have been baptized) you're a Christian.
Whether your life is appreciated by God or not... well that's another matter. But there is no sign contract that can be broken by acting in an X way.
Which means, yeah, the killer (in this scenario: you) is a Christian. but the queston is, why should he take some sort of collective blame? Why all the people coming and saying "Christianity is bad because X (X being one guy, a group of people or an entire institution like Church) does/did something wrong". What is with that stupid argument? I don't think very highly of myself, but I believe that it's the very PRINCIPLE of being intelligent not to make any sort of generalizations.
That reminds me of stupid teenagers that hate the Police because some random officer broke their friend's arm. Or even better, ten different officers bullied ten different people. But why the heck the Police has to suffer because of it? are those 10 people the Police, an institution that covers like, 100.000 people or whatever? Even if statistically 10% of them are bullies, idiots or whatever, how is it justified to carry that opinion on others? heck, even if 90% is, it's still damn unfair towards those 10% who are honest and helpful.
ANY kind of generalization is STUPID.
Not to mention that people blame the knife, not the cutler. Again, and again, and again.
I however think that applying such generalization towards the Police is more logical than towards religion. Why? Because in Police, you can expect the officers to have a superior who has to supervise them, some sort of psychical tests. If they bully people and still keep their job, something isn't ok. However, when it comes to religion, there are no supervisors, there is absolutely no control. Contrary to what many people are trying to explain (imho), religion takes the purest forms of freedom. You can follow it or not. You can become an atheist whenever you want, you can pick whatever laws you wish and ignore the rest. You can spit at it, you can love it, you can badmouth it (excluding fundamental Islam countries ofc.). Nobody checks on on you, nobody forces you to do reports, to pray, to do homework. Nothing. You are free to do whatever the **** you want, and you can quit whenever you want with absolutely no repressions.
And how come that something so liberal takes so many attacks from annoyed 15yo emos, who think they are so mature by writing stupid **** on internet forums like "religion is a form of total control" or "religion is slavery" ? Seriously, what's controling me? absolutely nothing. Can I quit? Whenever I want. In such a free system, I can do whatever. Including twisting the religion as I see fit.
Which brings me to my final point: because of the FREEDOM that religion offers, you can do whatever you want. And that means there WILL be people with signs "God hates fags" and there WILL be religious murders. Or whatever. Why? Because people can.
The ultimate point is however that people can do everything. And use any means necessary. Including those completely unrelated.
And there always must be a scapegoat.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't agree with Elodin that people who do something evil aren't Christians.
The problem with Elodin's statement is, that his main idea is: They can be christians UNTIL they do something evil. Normally you would say, they still are christians, but did somethign wrong, while Elodin's idea is, they have never been christians before, because a christian would never do evil things.
Conclusion (for me): A christian can't be a sinner.
Am I wrong?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:34, 02 Apr 2010.
|
Hi Doomforge. You raise some good points. Let me clarify some issues in response to what you wrote:
Quote:
The problem with this statement is that it can be applied to everything.
i.e. "if knives did not exist, there would be much less home murders when someone kills his wife/husband/kids swinging a kitchen knife in amok."
Yes, that's true. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that knives have caused some measure of death and sorrow. It seems like a pretty self-evident conclusion to me, and presumably nobody would say anything as ridiculous as "No, knives haven't killed anyone. When a knife penetrates human flesh, it ceases to be a knife."
Does that mean we should no longer use knives? Of course not. But there's a lot to be gained in recognizing both the benefits and dangers of using anything, whether it's kitchen knives or religion. Denying the dangers of misuse of a tool leads to, well, tragedy.
Quote:
The puzzling part is the fact that many people (even very intelligent people like you Cor - ofc if I'm wrong please correct me.) seem to think that those people would actually stay home rather than going to the same place with the same sign, only with "Jesus" swapped with Allah/Satan/Bush/Mao/The Party/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Whatever. People don't need religion, politics or in fact anything to hate.
Hmmm. If we're speaking about general causation, then I am inclined to agree with you in a general sense. People don't need religion to motivate them to kill each other. However, I think that it’s much more complicated than that, and have two counterarguments to lob in your direction to show you why.
(1) Specific Causation. We may rightly conclude that, in general, humanity would have still find reason enough to cause each other harm in the absence of religion. Although, I suggest that religion isn't the simple placeholder that you seem to suggest it is. I doubt Joe the murderer thinks consciously to himself, "Hey, I want to kill Jack, but I don't have a good reason. Let's see... hmm, I know! I'll use religion!" Unless you are suggesting that some people are simply born evil and some are born good, and the evil ones will use whatever tools they need to, whether it is religion, greed, or what have you. I don’t subscribe to any sort of hardwiring of human alignment, a predilection towards good and evil. Certainly we are hardwired through evolution to hold morals, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, but I believe (and evidence suggests) that the actual morals we hold are learned through interaction with our immediate surroundings – i.e., parents, friends, etc. Religious beliefs, and all the prejudices that go along with them, are passed down in a similar fashion. Thus I don’t see, in the specific case, that religion is just some sort of convenient motivation for hatred, which, in the event of its nonexistence, would just be replaced by something else.
Consider, if you will, the example of Mary, who holds a picket sign that says “God Hates Fags” at a Marine’s funeral, and believes that the Marine was killed as punishment for being homosexual. Obviously, Mary hates homosexuals if she’s willing to stand around with a sign that says as much. It isn’t too much of a leap to think that many people like Mary would, and do, assault or murder homosexual because of this hatred. It’s pretty obvious that this hatred comes from a religious belief taught to Mary by her family / her friends / her church / etc. Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt and say she learned in through her own scholarly activities or navel-gazing, is it too much of a stretch to conclude that her hatred stems from religion, and without those religious influences, she would not have such hatred? In other words, do you honestly believe that if Mary had not been indoctrinated to hate homosexuals by her religious heritage, she would still be standing outside of a funeral with a sign expressing irrational hatred for someone she doesn’t even know?
In the case of specific causation – by which I mean the influence of religion on a single person – it seems obvious to me that religion can be the direct cause of a person's “evil” choices, and I see no reason to suppose that, if the same person had been brought up in a different household, he would still make the same choices but based on a different motivation. If this is true in the specific case, then so it must be in the general case as well. Do you believe, for instance, that if there were no religious heritage, people would have still been fighting in the Middle East for thousands of years? What else would they be fighting over? Nothing I can think of, not in any organized sense.
Just to be clear, it’s not like I believe that, if religion mysteriously were to be erased, suddenly there’d be utopia. People would still be killing each other for both petty and ideological reasons. And a lot of those people doing the killing would undoubtedly have been the same people doing the killing in the religious reality. But the two bodies of people (killers in a religious free world and killers in a world of religion) are statistically unrelated. The fact remains that religion teaches a lot of people to hate, and a lot of those haters go on to kill. Some of those people may have been taught to hate for other reasons in the absence of religion, but some of them may have grown up to be nice, hate-free people. We’ll never know. But I think it violates some of the principles of causation, not to mention leads to some fairly frightening (and, I might add, unbelievable and unscientific) conclusions about the human psyche and the nature of evil.
(2) Vehicles I’ll keep this brief. Even if we suppose that you are correct in your general assertion that, if religion were somehow removed, people would find some other reason to hate each other, there still remains the issue of facility. We might also suppose that, in the absence of handguns, people would still be killing each other. We know this for a fact to be true. Does that give us reason to throw up our hands and say, “Well people are going to kill each other no matter what, so we might as well give them the best weapons possible!” Why don’t we just issue nuclear weapons to everyone? Since people are going to kill each other anyway, what difference does it make? The difference is, of course, that when you provide people with more options, they will take advantage of them with more frequency. If you give them better weapons, they will kill more people. If you give them more motivations, they will kill more people. Handguns made it easier to kill other people. I’d suggest that religion can also be a vehicle towards violence. It gives people irrational motives to kill/hurt people they do not even know.
Consider Abdul and his Jewish neighbor, Elijah. Now consider two sets of alternatives: (A) Either Abdul does or does not own a handgun. (B) Either Abdul is or is not a muslim.
This gives us four possibilities.
Abdul owns a handgun and is a Muslim.
Adbul owns a handgun and is not a Muslim.
Abdul does not own a handgun and is a Muslim.
Abdul does not own a handgun and is not a Muslim.
Which of those possibilities would you say would facilitate murdering Elijah the most?
(I know, by the way, that not all Muslims hate Jews. I think you get the point, though.)
Quote:
Which means, yeah, the killer (in this scenario: you) is a Christian. but the queston is, why should he take some sort of collective blame? Why all the people coming and saying "Christianity is bad because X (X being one guy, a group of people or an entire institution like Church) does/did something wrong". What is with that stupid argument? I don't think very highly of myself, but I believe that it's the very PRINCIPLE of being intelligent not to make any sort of generalizations.
I’m not making that generalization. What I’m saying is that it is naïve, nay: dangerous, to ignore the dangers in any tool. Religion, at least, for some people, is a tool. If you are unwilling to recognize the dangerous of abusing the tool, especially when the evidence of such abuse is everywhere, how do we learn? How to we ensure that future generations will not continue to abuse it? If you want religion to be a force of good in the world, you have to teach people how to use it correctly. I have no illusions that will ever happen, but the point is that you absolute cannot teach people how to use it correctly if you refuse to even acknowledge that it can be used incorrectly in the first place, especially when you use an argument as absurd as “if you misuse the tool, you’re actually not using it at all”.
Quote:
Not to mention that people blame the knife, not the cutler.
Blame the person wielding the knife, sure. More to the point (ha, get it, the point?? Erm…) blame the person who gave the knife to the person wielding it without showing them the right and wrong way to use it.
I’m finding it difficult to restrain myself from saying, by the way, that while knives and religion can both be tools for murder, at least a knife can serve a useful alternative purpose.
Quote:
Which brings me to my final point: because of the FREEDOM that religion offers, you can do whatever you want. And that means there WILL be people with signs "God hates fags" and there WILL be religious murders. Or whatever. Why? Because people can.
Inevitability is not really a good justification for anything. In any case, what I’m mostly arguing against is this ridiculous notion that religion (and Christianity in specific) is an omnibenevolent force. I have seen certain individuals try to justify this viewpoint through the creative use of definition, but those arguments hold no water when we’re talking about religion as a sociological force. They don't really hold much water as logical arguments, either, as my previous post is meant to show, but my experience tells me that the people using such arguments would recognize bad logic about as well as my two year old daughter would.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
