|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted October 06, 2010 11:24 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:25, 06 Oct 2010.
|
JJ, I'm really only posting this because I know how much it irritates you not to have the final word.
(you're also wrong)
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Atheism simply denies the existance of "known" (as in "described" by any known religion) gods. MATERIALISM is the active belief in that there is NOTHING else except "matter".
Atheists don't believe that any god exists. Materialistic atheists don't believe that anthing but the material exists. Some atheists believe in the survival of the human spirit after death.
"Strong atheism" says "I know there is no god at all." "Weak atheism" says "I don't believe any god exists" but do not claim that it is a fact that there is no god.
Quote:
However, god as a concept is ABSTRACT. God as a concept has nothing to do with religion at all - the name "god" is a bit awkward, with "god" being just nother name for everything missing to explain what is.
Nah, the claim that the term "god" is just another name for what can't be explained is pure bunk. And of couse the term "god" has everything to do with "religion." Although strictly speaking ALL of life is religious/spiritual.
Quote:
These questions, however, are irrelevant for the RELIGIOUS debate, since with religion you are not free to "reconstruct" the specific gods there. Because religion is NOT philosophy.
Sorry but there are quite a lot of philosophers in religion. The problem is when Christian philosophers start to put forward their specualtions as dogma rather than the Bible being the source of doctrine.
Quote:
RELIGION isn't based on logic, ration, or reason. It's just STORIES - not THAT different from Harry Potter. And there are differet stories, al of wich are supposed t be true. There is NOTHING whatsoever that would indicate the truth of any of those stories, but there is a wealth of things that indicate that these stories are just that
Nah, your statments are just plain false.
Logic, ratinoality and reason all play a role in religion, at least in Christianity. Not so much in atheism, especially the anti-theist brand of atheism. And there is quite a lot to indicate that the Bible is true so your assertion that religion is just unsupported stories is also false.
It is unfortunate that atheists generally turn just just making the blanket statment that religion is false. It is false and just stories just because they say so.
Quote:
Not at all. It's not a question of superiority. Fauch said that atheism is a religion or belief as well, which was what I rejected
Atheism, especially "hard" atheism is based on faith and has no supporting evidence. It is a religion that requires quite a bit of faith actually, since one must ignore known scientific facts to be an atheist.
Quote:
Believing does NOT mean not knowing, when we talk about religion, but having faith, which is basically the opposite.
So someone who has faith in the existance of God - a believer - knows that God exists - in the end, whether you come with "modern" or not - a believer is someone who doesn't doubt what he believes.
I agree that a true believer knows God exists because a true believer has had an encouter with the Living God. I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and that he lived a human life as Jesus Christ and that he personally died for my sins. I rememeber the moment when that revelation hit me and I responded to the truth and became a "new creation" and my walk with God began.
Quote:
I find the idea a lot more intuitive that there is more than one first cause, that things are the result of a "union" or "merge" or "coming together" of maybe two things, whatever you may call them.
If the word "first" is to have any meaning your statment is illogical. There can't be multiple "first" causes.
If you have faith in a pantheon of divine beings that is your perogative. But certainly there are no eternal material objects.
Quote:
The monotheistic religions are belief systems, and rejecting them is none.
Saying that monotheist religions are false is a statment of faith because you certainly can't prove monotheistic religions are false no offer one bit of evidence that monotheistic religinos are false.
Atheists have a lot of faith.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 10:47 AM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 10:56 AM |
|
|
Useless. What Elodin keeps saying is that once a person has committed sin, he no longer belows to religion (or never was a true believer), whatever he was before, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim. That's a bit cheap.
One could say that once an atheist commits crime, he instantly becomes a religious criminal, and was never an atheist. Why? Because I say so.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 11:49 AM |
|
|
Well, Salamndre, that is NOT what he says. He says, that someone who sins against Christ's "rules" is no Christian, because Christian means follower of Christ and you don't follow Christ when you Sin against his rules.
For example, you can't be a Christian when you murder someone.
You can't be a Christian either, when you hate.
This would be a point if the judgement about what constituates a murder or hate wouldn't be subjective. Most of the time it's for example debatable whether a murder is a murder or a justified killing (which is not forbidden).
In short, if you do something you don't perceive as a sin, you would still view yourself as a Christian and wouldn't see any necessity to repent either.
Since humans ultimately can't decide whether a person is absolutely right or not, and since humans do not in any absolute sense decide about the morality of deeds, following this logic, ultimately only Jesus can decide who is a real Christian and who is not.
Until then only the personal belief of a person decides whether they are Christians or not, since the "real Christian" perspective belongs to Jesus.
In other words - judging people in any religiously meaningful sense does not fall to humans and therefore not to Elodin either.
Example:
A man sits in prison, guilty of murder and convicted. Can he still be a Christian?
Of course:
a) He may not perceive his deed as a murder and may think, yes, I killed a man, no, it wasn't murder.
b) He may accept that it WAS murder and honestly repent, in which case he may have ceased to be a Christian for a short period of time, lost God, so-to-speak, but found him again.
c) He may actually not have committed the crime at all - being wrongly accused and sentenced.
d) He may indeed have murdered a man, admit that it was murder, do NOT repent it (since he would do it again in that special case), and hope that Christ may understand his reasons and have mercy - STILL being a Christian, but a human as well.
And all the time Elodin had no right to pre-empt the judgement, that would only be Jesus', and deny him his Christianity.
Point d) is basically killing Elodin's whole point, because hoping for Christ's mercy is one of the key things here. Sinner or not, if you BELIEVE in Christ and HOPE for his mercy you ARE a Christian.
Anyway, this s surely off-topic.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:08 PM |
|
|
Of course it's useless. So why does the argument continue through literally several hundred pages in the OSM?
This thread is about freedom of religion. That means people can believe as they wish, with no burden to prove that their belief is true. In the context of this thread, the right or wrong of the religion is completely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that religion exists, and the people who believe in that religion have a right to believe the way they do.
It's not about whether Christianity or Judaism or Taoism is right. It's not about whether Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist or Pentecostal beliefs are right. It's not about defining a "true" Christian or a "true" Sikh or a "true" Scotsman. It's about a person's right to believe as they do.
Either people believe in the idea of freedom of religion or they don't. Religion is about morals and spiritualism. It's about a person's deep sense of right or wrong. It's about a person's spiritual belief in how they should live their life, and how they should relate to the world around them. Within the context of freedom of religion, the right or wrong of their beliefs should not be questioned. That is a separate debate and absolutely should not be a requisite for their right to believe as they do.
To simply say "that is ridiculous and therefore you have no right to act on that belief" goes against the entire concept of freedom of religion. A belief in freedom of religion must of necessity also accept that religion by its very nature cannot be proven, nor easily defined or explained.
This is not a thread about the right or wrong of a religion. It's about a person's right, about their freedom.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:20 PM |
|
|
I do not agree it is off topic. Defining what is religion and how far can spread and influence over no believers and society in general is the key for defining then what can be allowed to.
For instance, the subject was the burka. Is it a sign of religion? Maybe (not proven so far, they tell blablabla, I still did not read where it is written they have to wear it). Is it perceived as a provocation by others? Yes. Should be allowed in public places while it scratches the nerves of anybody around? I think not. Does religion teach to respect others? I think yes. Do they do it? I think not. So far, it is not the atheists who should show respect and tolerance, but those who claim they hold the respect and tolerance from religion. Atheists do not claim any morale precepts coming from fairy tales.
Or maybe hit the top and accept that whole discussion is about Islam, and not religion. Nobody gives a penny about chinese people wearing chinese clothes in public places. Indians, Budhists or whatever. It is about Islam. Not welcomed so far, and will never be, even if they try by force. Too destructive.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This thread is about freedom of religion.
It's not.
The thread is about what rights come with freedom of religion and what not.
You might quote the Bible and ask, where does God's start and end and where does Ceasar's start and end and what should you give God and what Caesar.
You can further ask, is being member of a certain religion reason enough to enjoy PRIVILEGES?
Is it enough to nullify laws?
And so on.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:36 PM |
|
|
Bullsh1t.
There's snow (and the bane of OSM) come to argue again (as usual), so I'm outa here....
Someone tries to talk some sense and you just want to argue.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:36 PM |
|
|
How free are we when visiting a religious governed country? I think we have way less rights than they have when visiting a democratic country.
I think we have not a single right, no freedom or speech or action, nada.
It should be enough to prove why people from those countries can't mix easily. If they really want to, I have nothing against. But I am waiting to see yet.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:48 PM |
- penalty applied by angelito on 07 Oct 2010. |
|
Salamandre, it's not you that I have a problem with. It's about jollyjackass and him ruining this board with his constant arguing.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 12:51 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 01:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bullsh1t.
There's snow (and the bane of OSM) come to argue again (as usual), so I'm outa here....
Someone tries to talk some sense and you just want to argue.
...
Salamandre, it's not you that I have a problem with. It's about jollyjackass and him ruining this board with his constant arguing.
That you have a problem doesn't give you any special or exdclusive rights, does it?
Nor is "Bullsh1t" a proper argument. Or name-calling...
So why the hell don't you beat it already instead of just promising it when you don't have any real contribution to make?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 08:05 PM |
|
|
Personal attacks are not the way to convince others from new points of view.
If you do not like the way someone posts, ignore him/her.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2010 09:37 PM |
|
|
Awwww, isn't that cute, Angelito is pretending to be a mod in the land of chaos. There are no rules in the OSM any more and there hasn't been for a long time. It's street rules now.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 08, 2010 01:12 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:13, 08 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Elodin, not YOU are defining what atheism is and not is.
No I am not. I am going by the way atheism is defined in philosophy. Google "strong atheism" and "weak atheism."
Quote:
In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, there are the fewest murders. In the most religious U.S. states, there are the most murders.
Only 0.2 % percent of U.S. prisoners are atheists.
Atheists are more tolerant towards women's and homosexuals' rights.
Atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of education, and low levels of racial prejudice.
Atheists beat their children less often than others, and more often encourage them to think independently.
In Sweden, the most secular country in the world according to Zuckerman, the charitable aid given is the highest as a proportion of GDP.
No one wants to claim to be an atheist in prison because it looks bad for the parole board. The liars who have never foot in a church or have not attended church in ages all claim a religion after they have been caught. What is obvious is that they are not Christians because Jesus said his sheep hear his voice and follow him. They (almost all) are atheists.
Atheists are in general the least tolerant of all religions. Just look at what ALWAYS happens when athiests gain control of a nation. Mass murder and denial of basic human rights.
According to studies atheists have more mental illnesses, tend to have poor relationships with their fathers, commit suicide more often and are less charitable than religious people. Atheism, it seems, is destructive to both individuals and to society.
Yes, I would not doubt that atheists are less likely to spank their children since the logical conclusion of materialistic atheism is that there is no such thing as moral and immoral actions so atheists have nothing meaningful to teach their children about behavior other than "legal" and "illegal."
Quote:
Until then only the personal belief of a person decides whether they are Christians or not, since the "real Christian" perspective belongs to Jesus.
In other words - judging people in any religiously meaningful sense does not fall to humans and therefore not to Elodin either.
I don't have to make judgements about that. The Bible specificly says that no one who hates or murders is a Christian. Jesus specificly says his sheep hear his voice and follow him.
Quote:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jesus said we would know unbelievers and believers by their fruit (actions.)
Quote:
Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Quote:
To simply say "that is ridiculous and therefore you have no right to act on that belief" goes against the entire concept of freedom of religion.
Exactly. Either there is to be freedom of religion or the state is to be the source of religious doctrine.
Clicky
Evidently the French courts have decided that freedom of religion only applies to practicing your religion within the walls of a place of worship. So much for freedom of religion in France. They are one step away from becoming a communist nation with an atheist monster like Stalin or Pol Pot heading it up.
Quote:
The French Constitutional Council said the law did not impose disproportionate punishments or prevent the free exercise of religion in a place of worship, finding therefore that "the law conforms to the Constitution."
|
|
Warlord
Famous Hero
Lord of Image Spam
|
|
posted October 08, 2010 02:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No one wants to claim to be an atheist in prison because it looks bad for the parole board. The liars who have never foot in a church or have not attended church in ages all claim a religion after they have been caught. What is obvious is that they are not Christians because Jesus said his sheep hear his voice and follow him. They (almost all) are atheists.
Atheists are in general the least tolerant of all religions. Just look at what ALWAYS happens when athiests gain control of a nation. Mass murder and denial of basic human rights.
According to studies atheists have more mental illnesses, tend to have poor relationships with their fathers, commit suicide more often and are less charitable than religious people. Atheism, it seems, is destructive to both individuals and to society.
Yes, I would not doubt that atheists are less likely to spank their children since the logical conclusion of materialistic atheism is that there is no such thing as moral and immoral actions so atheists have nothing meaningful to teach their children about behavior other than "legal" and "illegal."
Proof to ALL of those?
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2010 02:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They are one step away from becoming a communist nation with an atheist monster like Stalin or Pol Pot heading it up.
err... does communism has something to do with religion?
last time I checked, France was far from being communist.
Quote:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jesus has just called you a sheep! 
|
|
Warlord
Famous Hero
Lord of Image Spam
|
|
posted October 08, 2010 02:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
quote:Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jesus has just called you a sheep!
He called you a lamb.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 02:57 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:58, 14 Apr 2011.
|
Sadly a couple of days ago the burqa ban went into effect in France. Here is a snippet of some comments from a Muslim woman who contributes to CNN.
Clicky
Quote:
Some people might believe that fanatical husbands and fathers force the veil on women. But evidence exists that English soccer fans engage in greater domestic violence after England loses a match, so should soccer be banned? How absurd that would be.
Should we deny the right of a Carmelite or Benedictine nun to wear her habit or to take a vow of seclusion?
In a case when dress is enforced on a woman, we must support and empower her, just as we would a victim of domestic violence. In the case of the niqab, the women whom I have talked with over the years who choose to cover in this manner are articulate and headstrong and cover, often despite opposition from their families. It is part of their religious journey, an expression of their sense of piety and their relationship with their creator. Their decision has little or nothing to do with sex, fear of men or any of the other stereotypes thrown into this debate. Should we deny the right of a Carmelite or Benedictine nun to wear her habit or to take a vow of seclusion?
Most of us do not choose to honor our faith in this way, yet that does not diminish the sincerity of those who do. Such choices might seem strange, but discomfort on our part does not justify a draconian ban. Such a ban institutionalizes anti-Muslim discrimination and panders to far right, xenophobic and racist discourse. That discourse does not have a future for the Muslims in Europe, which is of course what many feel is the ultimate aim of this ban.
State power, unless wielded with discretion and wisdom, can be brutal and tyrannical. Many Muslims believe the West is always lecturing them about freedom and liberal values, as in the case of the Danish cartoons, but then denies them their own free choice. The consequence is a feeling that such freedoms are not universal, but are reserved for the selected; that such freedoms are actually fragile and perhaps even a lie.
The French ban feeds the extremes and does nothing for the center ground. The ban will increase the polarization of opinions and the isolation of Muslims. This is the last thing that should happen if France truly wants to enable its Muslim citizens to become engaged in society. European politicians have got to stop pandering to the far right to prop up their fading parties. Such cynical politics is dangerous; it has done Europe no favors in our history, and it will do us no good in our future.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
