Design your own hell

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by skywalker


I respect Elok FAR more than I respect you (given that you act like a moron). He is serious and rational, whereas you rant and rave. An atheist who isn't open to other modes of thought and who derides religious people as somehow inferior is no better than someone like Fred Phelps.

I haven't derided any of the religionistas as 'inferior'. I have repeatedly said they are welcome to their beliefs as long as their beliefs in supernatural beings do not impinge upon my civil rights. I'm not an 'a -theist' or an 'a- gnostic'.

Elok's 'rationality' extends as far as I can tell, to presuming I'm a woman (all evidence to the contrary) on the basis of my forum name (are you a Star Wars character? Is Boris an operatic part?), treating me 'differently' on that basis, telling me I have opinions not beliefs, and making circular arguments about supernatural beings.

I'm familiar with that species of rational thought, having been inculcated in the tenets of the Catholic faith since an early age.

Respect Elok all you want, but his alcohol fuelled posts contained more than a little of the 'ol' time religion' rant and rave.

And that definitely ends my participation in this thread. If you want to reply skywalker, p.m. me, otherwise please don't bother.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Disagree.
God can only be reached, if he offers himself to men. Men cannot bring God down, only he can.
The key is not in believing God to experience him, for if this were so, how could anyone of us come to know him? But rather, it is by letting him into our hearts, and the recognition of his presences will allow us to get to know him, and to believe in him.

I meant the only way within our control to any extent. And even that ain't guaranteed.

Which brings me to Boris's second argument (the first I've never heard of, but it sounds like what happens when shaky theology fuses with racist supremacy). Not ALL christians feel what I'm thinking of; I only really felt it once, and not intentionally. It's a rare thing, and I'm guessing what I felt is only a shadow of what hits a saint, or the monks on Mt. Athos. I mentioned it only as something akin to the "proof" some demanded. Probably shouldn't have said anything.

But as an addendum, let me just say that what I felt was utterly different from any other feeling, and as physical as it was mental; try to imagine something like a warm wind spinning around you, but penetrating your bones without violence, or getting embraced by fire. That's the closest I can come to describing it, and if that was false, I see no reason to trust my sense of smell either.

[GePap]

To me the proof against Christianity is Buddhism, and vice versa. A devout Christian is no more devout than a devout Buddhist, a Buddhist priest can't disprove a priest or minister and their faith, anymore than that minster or priest can disprove the Buddhist priest, and all these individuals may feel in their hearts they have found truth.

If you listen to their dogma, someone must be wrong-but whom? No side has the ability to "prove" thier faith- its impossible, it is faith, and thus exists free of any logical evidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not ALL christians feel what I'm thinking of;

And that brings us back to that point, there are many ways for God to reach out to people, and in those different ways, will provoke different responses, even in those who accept God.

No side has the ability to "prove" thier faith- its impossible, it is faith, and thus exists free of any logical evidence.

Christians offer Christ as the Son of God.

Buddhists do not believe that Buddha is anything more than a man.

Ergo, one ought to believe the teachings of Christ over those of Buddha.

[Elok]

Er, GePap? Democrats can't PROVE Republicans wrong, nor Republicans Democrats. And we're all pretty much certain the Libertarians are wrong too, but we can't even prove that. Yet government still exists. It's just that what makes one government work and another fail is too complex to be sorted out under controlled conditions. So it gets anecdotal, based on personal experience, what-have-you.

Oh, and I'd like to thank Skywalker for the words of support. That may well have been the first time in Apolyton history that an atheist called a Christian "rational."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok


Oh, and I'd like to thank Skywalker for the words of support. That may well have been the first time in Apolyton history that an atheist called a Christian "rational."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, and I'd like to thank Skywalker for the words of support. That may well have been the first time in Apolyton history that an atheist called a Christian "rational."

Bigotry rears its head again.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Evolution can be used to support Social Darwinism. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. Nietzsche was used to support the Nazis. That doesn't me he was wrong or bad. The problem is not in religion, or even in Christianity; the problem lies in those who are close-minded or seek to manipulate the populace. ANYTHING can be used to do that; religion has just been a favorite historically.

Again, you are not comparing the same thing. Both Darwinism and Nietzche's writings are ultimately based on logic and reason. Religion ultimately is based on unknown, fear, and obedience to authority.

Darwin himself would disagree with Social Darwinism. [Darwin himself didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest." Herbert Spencer did, IIRC] Nietzche disagreed with fascism and nazism. Not so with Christianity. First of all, it is clearly recorded in the bible that YHWH commanded genocides and other atrocities (e.g. human sacrifices). Secondly, The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem witch hunt were in fact launched by people who officially represented Christianity.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
My point is that the oppression committed in the name of God is always a perversion of the ideals of Christianity, and presumptively of Islam in the case of all those fatwas.

This is what is called the "No True Scotman" fallacy. When applied to Christianity, it often goes something like this:

Apologist: Christianity does not condone murder.
Skeptic: Joe Doe killed a bunch of people, even said God told him to do so.
Apologist: Joe Doe isn't a True Christian.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
That's what I was getting at, Boris. There is no atheists' creed that says, "take anyone who you suspect of disloyalty, give them a show trial, and then hit them with the guillotine," so to judge the merits of atheism based on the Reign of Terror would be ridiculous. Much as it is ridiculous to judge Christianity based on the Spanish Inquisition or some such. Sorry if it sounded like a counteroffensive.

The thing is atheism has no central tenets and doctrines. There is no worldview to atheism. Atheism has no official insitution, no decrees, no hierarchy, no power structure. You can't point to somebody and say, "This is a typical atheist," because there is no such thing.

That's why arguments apply to Judeo-Christianity very often cannot be simply turned around and apply to atheism.

[DaShi]

Many atheist act the same and think the same things. They often use the same arguments. They also don't like to be grouped.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bigotry rears its head again.

What bigotry? I was being facetious. Chill.

UR: If you define a "christian" as "anybody who claims to follow the teachings of Christ," then you are correct, but the assertion is meaningless. Much as terrorists could be called "political activists," and in turn we might assert that political activists often kill people. If we're judging religion, we should judge religion itself, not its followers.

I know atheism is not a defined school of beliefs as such. The closest thing to an atheist's creed is simply, "there is no God." By the same token, however, the Nicene Creed doesn't mention killing newly-converted believers to ensure that they go to heaven, and Christ himself certainly said nothing of the sort.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Er, GePap? Democrats can't PROVE Republicans wrong, nor Republicans Democrats. And we're all pretty much certain the Libertarians are wrong too, but we can't even prove that. Yet government still exists. It's just that what makes one government work and another fail is too complex to be sorted out under controlled conditions. So it gets anecdotal, based on personal experience, what-have-you.

Oh, lord, but if you think this is a rational counterarguement....

Government can work without any of the parties you mentioned- in fact, government's history is long before any of those individual political organizations or political ideologies came into effect- you can hardly say that Christianity predates Christian ideology (ie, the teachings of Christ) or that Buddhism predatd Buddhist ideology (ie the teachings of Buddha).

Political parties are constructs of the era the inhabit, and politics is the realm of managing and deviding power. Yes, at the bottom, there are "faith" issues involved in the basic difference (basic non-logic based differences in the view of humanity)-but party arguemnts basically derive from debates about the allocation of power and economic reosurces- things than can then be raionall studied and debated. All of which is impossible with things that are purely faith.

So please try a different counter-arguement, becuase this one was rather weak.

[DinoDoc]

Being stuck in a room with you people for eternity would be hell.

[GePap]

Well, as the major of the City of Dis, I say:

welcome forever DD, welcome FOREVER.