The cost of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:43 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:38 AM)CiderThinker Wrote:  The bible supports women's advancement?

Why then does it list them below a man's possessions and why does it teach that if a man rapes a woman then he must pay her father and marry her regardless of her wishes.

That tells you everything about the bible's take on female independence...there is none.

Are you talking about Judaism or Christianity?

Both

If you site the teachings of the OT - which you have - then my point stands.


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:46 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The POINT of your OP was that atheism was *costing* something.
Prove it. Provide a peer reviewed study of why people trade belief systems. You can't and you won't.

The fact is there are 33,000 sects of Christians. You all think YOU ALONE possess the "truth".

So why exactly are you here ? You think you can assert nonsense and get no push-back ? I know more about your religion and the Bible than you do.
You can here to discuss what exactly ?

Hey Bucky!

Thats a bold claim that you know more about the Bible and Christianity than I do. Are you sure about that? Even when you know nothing about me? It seems like the kind of over statement of someone who possessing almost none of the entirety of knowledge saying there definitely is no God. A bit fool hardy perhaps.

Try me, fool. You picked the wrong dude.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-08-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:33 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:28 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Ok, I can see where you are coming from. I maintain that we do not pick and choose we use a principle could the analogy of scripture. Scripture interprets scripture, and its actually very consistent. Let me take up your examples.

Jesus did say that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and he did also say that we are to turn the other cheek. If you read them in light of all of his teachings you see that this clearly means that believing in him will cause great division on the earth, even within families. He didn't come to bring world peace, he came as a saviour to everyone who would accept Him, and those who don't will do so rather violently (atheists come to mind). this is the message of the whole of the New Testement.

He did say we are saved by believing in him, and he said we will be judged by our works. This actually answers the question of those who think God is some kind of mug who can be fooled by saying we believe and then live sinfully and still go to heaven. In the words of James, Faith without works is dead. Obeying Christ is proof that we are trusting and believing in Him.

No cherry picking

You're assuming that any of the bible is true. Toss the book, try thinking for yourself. It might surprise you.

Pablo, I thought this was a discussion about needing to cherry pick because the Bible contradicts itself. Are you changing it to something else? You want to discuss the idea that thinking for yourself about God, is better than reading the Bible?

Give me proof that we are not currently plugged into the matrix, as a test of your epistemology and then we can continue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:20 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Thanks for your reply. You still didn't answer the most important question. On what basis do you make the distinction that you are right and many are wrong? Please answer this.

Where did i say that I am "right" and other people are "wrong"? I don't care about right or wrong but what I do care about is human suffering.

A lack of sexual equality creates suffering for women and I have a desire that people don't suffer.


Quote:You being a gay man, and how you feel about me as a christian is a very good point that I made in another post. What is tolerance?

I respect your right to be gay. I would even campaign to make sure of your human right to make that choice. But I believe that your lifestyle is morally wrong.

You, seem to not be able to live with that. Why can't there be true tolerance? Why can't we disagree, and that be ok? I will never agree with your lifestyle, and you will probably never agree that your lifestyle is wrong. I think we can still respect each other though and live with the tension?

If you have children, and one of them happens to be gay, that gay child will suffer under your parenthood.

You are not to blame for your lack of understanding of this issue, but your child will suffer as a result of your ignorance, and I care about any suffering that any human might go through, including your children.

This has got nothing to do with a lack of respect for you, actually quite the reverse, I hope to save you from yourself.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like phil.a's post
27-08-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
Yeah I live in the UK and i don't see any converts to Islam. I can see immagrants... But I see no conversions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:47 AM)CiderThinker Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:43 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Are you talking about Judaism or Christianity?

Both

If you site the teachings of the OT - which you have - then my point stands.

In another post I explained how this works. The Bible interprets itself. There are two epochs OT and NT divided by the fulfilment of the OT by the coming of Christ.

Christians in the NT for example do not sacrifice animals, and they do eat 'unclean' food. The reason is that Christ is the fulfilment, and the new law for Christians, referred to in theology as the law of Christ. It includes and excludes things from the OT based on what the NT teaches. For example, OT says do not steel, and the NT says do not steel, so it is an abiding law. hope that makes sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
Yet another example of why it is not my favorite tactic of wading into comic books.

Now see if you can spot the pattern.

Allah exists<=the Koran says so<=Therefor Allah is the one true god.
Yahweh exists<=the Torah Talmud and OT say so,<=Therefor Yahweh is the one true god.
Frank exists<=the book of Frank says so<=Therefor Frank is the one true god.

The term for that is circular reasoning. If others using that circular reasoning to quote their books to prove other gods, what makes you think that same argument you use now will work on us?

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
Oh wow. I jumped straight from page 1 to page 10. First thing I saw was chrsitian man saying he didn't want to argue etc... Now later on I see him asking someone what makes him think he's right or wrong lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheStraightener's post
27-08-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:53 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:20 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Thanks for your reply. You still didn't answer the most important question. On what basis do you make the distinction that you are right and many are wrong? Please answer this.

Where did i say that I am "right" and other people are "wrong"? I don't care about right or wrong but what I do care about is human suffering.

A lack of sexual equality creates suffering for women and I have a desire that people don't suffer.


Quote:You being a gay man, and how you feel about me as a christian is a very good point that I made in another post. What is tolerance?

I respect your right to be gay. I would even campaign to make sure of your human right to make that choice. But I believe that your lifestyle is morally wrong.

You, seem to not be able to live with that. Why can't there be true tolerance? Why can't we disagree, and that be ok? I will never agree with your lifestyle, and you will probably never agree that your lifestyle is wrong. I think we can still respect each other though and live with the tension?

If you have children, and one of them happens to be gay, that gay child will suffer under your parenthood.

You are not to blame for your lack of understanding of this issue, but your child will suffer as a result of your ignorance, and I care about any suffering that any human might go through, including your children.

This has got nothing to do with a lack of respect for you, actually quite the reverse, I hope to save you from yourself.

Phil

Ask an Islamic woman if she is suffering and she will say no. Islamic women were on the streets of London calling British women whores for how they dress etc. Your argument doesn't hold. And society sometimes has to do a trade off of suffering, the good of the many outweighing the good of the few. Its actually an atheistic idea called Utilitarianism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:41 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:17 AM)pablo Wrote:  As long as she doesn't do anything the church frowns on, abortion for example.


Why and how do you think treating a person as less than equal because of their gender is right anywhere in the world? Wouldn't the Eastern world also be a product of their society?


It is not obviously against nature, homosexuality occurs across many species.
How, exactly, is it "bad for people's individual health"?
Gay adoption is not bad for society, (unless fewer orphans is bad) it is however, bad for the church. Gay couples are less likely to be Christians, their children are then less likely to be raised, or become Christians. This means it hurts the church's main concerns, money and power.
As far as propagation of the species, there are roughly 7 billion of us, we don't really need a couple billion more do we?

Actually the church is very supportive of those who have abortions. You don't have to support the killing of the unborn in order to support those who suffer the tragedy of going through with such a thing.

So secondly your basis for saying everyone should be equal is that you think so. Well there are large parts of the world doesn't think so. That's kind of a problem for your atheism. I think your missing the elephant in the room.

On the one hand you want to destroy and cut down christianity that has offered objective morality. Objective here meaning outside of us. You are then left with corporate and social evolutionary subjective morality. But having removed objectivity you have no grounds to make and force other nations to agree with you, when they think differently. You have nothing to appeal to. You stand on quicksand.

Tell me plainly, why are you infallibly right about homosexuality and Russia and Islamic States completely wrong? Its rhetorical, as you have no answer.

You know, I like you. I hope attacks won't make you react like a cornered animal, you need a thick skin here.

People here are as different as night and day, we come from all walks of life, all age groups, all corners of the world, various cultures and ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientation and what have you. There is no common denominator at all, with the exception that none of us believe in any gods.

What we also have in common is a moral compass. Just go and read our support section and then tell me we have no moral compass. A moral compass is part of evolution, it's not needed to invent one, we all have it already unless something went wrong genetically with an individual. We have been living in groups since ever as far as I know. Lots of time to evolve into a being with a social consciousness. If you study the animal world, you will find the same in herd, flock and pack animals etc. Strict rules of conduct that serve to protect the group.

So, this is innate in us, as well as provided by laws. Those individuals who break the unwritten rules are taken care of through the written law.

Why would we need a third group of rules that says the exact same as the other two sets?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: