They actually say this stuff?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2011, 01:01 PM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(21-12-2011 12:56 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  
(21-12-2011 03:42 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Although truth be told America is a democracy and in a democracy majority rules. So as long as the Christians are in power it will be a Christian country. sorry

Except the US is not a democracy... It's a Democratic Republic. The electoral college is an example of how we aren't a true democracy. There is also the fact that a "Christian nation" implies some sort of official endorsement, which is not the case.


This is a good thing. It ensurs that the majority can't restrict the rights and liberties of the minority. It doesn't always work but it's clearly the best system of government the Earth has seen.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
28-05-2012, 06:04 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(08-10-2011 09:42 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  NO. Or maybe you could clarify what you thought with this exactly, but I do not see atheism making any kind of world history, or influencing it, there was always some religion influencing world history, not atheism.


NO. What symbols?

Hello Filox (say...your last name isn't Mulder, is it? just kidding), and thanks for the response.

How about a fish with legs?

See here for examples.


(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  NO. If you think about some scientific books, that has nothing to do with atheism, because a lot of religious people write those books and think of them as scientific evidence, no matter that they say the opposite of what their religion says in the scriptures. Atheism does not have a Bible as such.


While the use of the word "sacred" might actually be taboo, for some atheists, the defense of science and scientific findings are regarded by some to be without controversy and above reproach. Much as the Christian views the Holy Bible, and most religionists view whatever "holy writ" is associated with their particular group.

Of course it should be kept in mind that devotion is a variable that will determine the zeal of the adherent.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  NO. We do not use scriptures to give us clues to morality, we use our simple logic and humanity to feel the morality and ethics of our actions, and the laws are given to all of us by the state in which we are living.

No-one said that scripture had anything to do with it. The reverse is true, in that opposition to biblical teaching is oftentimes the foundation for the establishment of an alternative moral stance and has in America had a direct impact on even the laws.

This cannot be denied.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  You can debate about the philosophical meaning of the words "believe" and "religion" as much as you want, but the fact is that "atheism" is the opposite of religion, not another religion, as we don't have holly books, scriptures, symbols, rituals, even deities to believe in... Only thing we do have is moral and ethics, and that alone makes us human, not religious.

There is no need to debate the meaning of the words "believe" and "religion." Their meanings are not vague, and their definitions are readily accepted in most cultures.

While the perception of certain things such as "holy books, scriptures (which I don't actually remember crediting to atheists as an acceptable term), symbols, rituals, or deities" might be debatable, a rose, by any other name...is a rose.

Admitting morality and ethics does not change the fact that Atheism is foundational to particular morals and ethics.

Not only that, but it places man as the determiner of right and wrong, whereas Christians, and even most religionists (and this could, of course, be picked apart), look to the decree of their religious writings and God (or gods) to determine right or wrong. In another thread, this was exampled by one presenting the findings of science over that which is given in the creation account.

As far as simply being human, rather than religious, another look at the word religion will show that for the atheist, just as for the religionist, devotion to what they believe is not an option, but is required. For if one does not truly believe there is no God, they can no longer be deemed an atheist, even as if one does not truly believe there is a God, they can no longer be deemed a religionists.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  So, this is all nonsense you just wrote here.

As Bugs would say, "Nyaah...could be!" lol

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  By the definition of the "religion", none of those things fit in the "atheism".

Sure they do.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  Sorry, try again.

Smile

Saw this the other day, thought it was cool:

; )

Supposed to be a "wink," I guess.

S.T.


I am a little disappointed that the link was changed. Perhaps not surprised...but disappointed.
And since the collapsed view does not give the link I will post it here to make it easier to see.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 06:40 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes I hear these types of comments occasionally since I work at Wal-Mart and some of my family are very ignorant to topics outside of Christianity. It's just a lack of education on the subject that carries throughout America and as mentioned already it is echoed vastly by peoples congregations, preachers, and "news" sources.

Hello CL, not to sound facetious, but are you saying that the education that the government provides is failing in that which they seek to teach our children?

That is good news!

It would seem that there is a battle between what Public School (as well as colleges) are trying desperately to teach our children and that which some of those children learn from their parents, Pastors, sunday school teachers, et cetera.

Could I suggest that in both cases instruction is given, and the determining factor will, I believe, not be the persuasive quality of the teachers/instructors, but the persuasion of The Teacher, the Holy Spirit, for it is He that teaches the heart. And while we think that those that go on to embrace atheism have been untouched by the work of God in the individuals heart, we know that sometimes it is not until years later that the instruction and knowledge of God leads a person to repentance and an admission to the truth which God has written on the heart of every individual which is so often suppresessed.

(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  As far as that Atheism being a religion debate... There is no thing unifying the terms of atheism.

The same thing could be said of most of the religions of the world. The result is offshoot branches, cults, differing denominations...groups that other adherents to a similar religion would distance themselves from.



(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It is a non-system that has no universal connection or line of belief like domination of a religion do.

Many atheists are very well organised. This forum is a good example. As this group gets better organized, we can expect to see more unified groups which adherents of atheism will gladly join. And just like the other religions of the world, people will bounce around until they find a groups that is best in line (with their own beliefs (or unbelief, if that sounds better).

(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Many people nowadays come to the thought scientifically but plenty have always seen it as no subject of reasoning; instead to some people it is just a universal reality.

Lets be honest: atheism is usually due to a rejection of God. If there were not some spark of belief in a person, there would be a neutrality such as most of us have concerning bigfoot. Or UFOs.

How many people go to forums that host such topics to inform them of their error in believing something so silly? Just doesn't happen too often, does it.

(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The Darwin Fish or the fish with legs isn't an atheistic symbol. That is a evolution symbol often used to counter religious thoughts but evolution doesn't equal atheism.

It isn't a symbol for you, perhaps, but it is an atheistic symbol.

It has a root meaning to many and is a picture statement that there is no God, and that He did not create the world.

COuld I ask you, do you have any type of symbol on your car or elsewhere that points to your atheistic position? I know not all atheists feel compelled to have something like this, just as not all Christians have a fish on their car.

(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Many people understand evolution and believe in a deity.

This is true. Some men I greatly respect believed in theistic evolution. This is in part due to an attempt to incorporate scientific findings and conclusions into their belief system.

(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The American Atheist symbol is a symbol of an organization. That isn't an universal unifier that means anything to atheists outside of a select group who are a aware of an apart of the organization. Just like the Thinking Atheist logo, it's just the organization and what defines it.

That there are specific symbols for specific groups does not change the fact that atheists have symbols. That some do not does not change the validity of the point I made concerning the close correlation of atheisms actions to religion.

(08-10-2011 01:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There is no foundations atheism, it's just other groups and other school of thoughts that are usually affirming of the atheist thought.

This is worded in a way that I am not 100% sure the intent of the statement, but I think it is to say that atheism has no foundation, basically. I would have to disagree if that is what was meant. There are foundational beliefs (or ideas, if you prefer), the one being that there is no God.

Thanks for the input.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2012 07:10 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(11-10-2011 04:33 PM)Jakel Wrote:  Well Ranger to quote the FAQ: "Isn’t atheism a religion? Sure. And not smoking is a habit.":). Not believing in something is not a belief in itself. Stop the baitingTongue

Baiting? lol

Depending on the individual...not smoking could be a discipline or an issue of non access. Most people have heard of cigarettes (or insert another substance) and make a conscious decision to either smoke or not. There is a close correlation to belief in God: most have heard of God and make a conscious decision to believe...or not.

An unbeliever and a believer differ when it comes to their view on knowledge of God, a believer usually sees scripture as teaching that all men are born with a knowledge of God, whereas the unbeliever looks at it as indoctrination, meaning, if a child was not taught to believe in God or a god, they would never come to the conclusion that there is a Creator. No point argung that point, but, we can, for the sake of this conversation, look at those that have heard of God or a god or gods, and discuss their decision either to believe...or not to believe.

Both are conscious decisions. Would you disagree with that?

(11-10-2011 04:33 PM)Jakel Wrote:  As for the "atheist" symbols. I saw the american atheist guys (whatever they are called) symbol in their... As an atheist I do not want to be associated with those people.

I do want to point out that you raise a very good point which is seldom taken into consideration in these discussions.

I am constantly associated with the fraudulent scam artists that the media loves to put into the spotlight. So I understand fully what you mean here. We see the same principle in politics, ranging from moderates to fanatics. So understand, I try not to presume one's position, and appreciate it when this respect is shown to me.

I understand that many atheists have their views, and that is enough for them. They have no intention of discussing their views or getting into the fray. I can respect that.

(11-10-2011 04:33 PM)Jakel Wrote:  They might be atheists, but they still strike me as being very american (not in a positive way...).

lol...not sure what this means, so I will leave it alone.

(11-10-2011 04:33 PM)Jakel Wrote:  They seem to have a very hostile approach, saying believers are stupid etc., which isn’t going to accomplish anything except fueling the flame war, and they seem to have very strange priorities.

And the reverse is true of certain "Christian groups." An extreme example would be a white supremacy group that calls itself "Christian," though they violate very basic biblical doctrine.

(11-10-2011 04:33 PM)Jakel Wrote:  (A symbol for atheism. gtfo... there must be more important stuff to discuss)

The general issue would be, "Is atheism a religion?"

And I think it a very important issue.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 08:27 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
Hello Filox, I would just like to say thanks for the time you have put into your reply. I found it to be a sincere reply with the intent of discussion, and I always appreciate that.

Understand that there is no intention on my part to minimize or mock your beliefs, so keep that in mind as you read the response.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  OK, S.T., I see we will have more work to do around here... Let me continue.

Fair enough.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  First about the SYMBOL. First time I see this, I have no affiliation with any group of atheists, if you do not count this forum.

Isn't that like saying "I have no affiliation with guns unless you count my 45?"

You will have to disassociate yourself from any organized group in order to negate this particular factor.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Most of us don't.

Are there stats to back up that statement?

Look at it this way: while it may be true that "most atheists do not join a group" (and I am neither affirming or denying this, it is irrelevant), could we not say that those who do...are religious?



(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  If you compare atheist symbols with religion ones, where every member of his church belongs to that church, uses it's symbols and laws, we are more free, some of us do, some don't use some kind of symbol. But we are not all "one atheist under leg-fish" symbol. We do not belong to any one organization, most of us do not belong to any organization, group or association. That is why you can not generalize and put some symbol as a general atheist symbol. There is no such thing. On the other hand, EVERY Christian has a cross as a symbol, there are no Christians who do not accept the cross as their symbol, or a fish without legs; Roman-Catholic, Baptist, Orthodox, Presbyterian...

There is no question that the Cross is a universal symbol for Christianity. But I have no problem with this. In view is the use of many atheists of their own symbols, which unifies them as a group. This falls into the identifying factors of a religion.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  No, my name is not Mulder, whatever gave you that idea?
Smile

Well, it was supposed to be humor (sigh, so sad when you have to explain a joke...lol): Fox Mulder...X-Files...sigh...

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  "SACRED" is not a taboo for me, I accept that there is a lot of sacred things on this planet to a lot of people. I also have some things that are sacred to me, only I do not associate it with God. What you are implying here is that we consider some scientific books and theories as sacred.

For you, I think I could suggest that your personal beliefs are in some fashion, sacred to you personally. For example:

Quote:We have the Universe that created our planet Earth, we have the Sun to keep our planet warm, we have plants to give us oxygen, we have rain and rivers to drink, we have fish and deers to make food, we have nature to support us...


(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Now hold on for a minute, The Bible was written for the Christians, people who believe in the Word of God, that is why the Bible is a sacred book to those people,

While it is true that ultimately scripture was written for Christians, there were no "Christians" when God first entrusted Israel with the Oracles of God.

And if we look at the actions of Israel, we will see that there was not a consensus of belief in Israel in the revealed Word of God. In the times of the Kings, there are but a few examples of true believers.

Biblically speaking, true belief is always associated with obedience, and Israel was judged for her disobedience to God's word.

And just as among atheists that are nominal in their belief, sadly so it is with many that call themselves Christians. The Bible sits on a shelf until Sunday, only to be opened to read a few verses that the Pastor/Preacher is using as his text for the message.

Churches have been compared to Colleges on this forum, which is a mistake: there are also Theological Colleges, and it is to these that Colleges should be compared to.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Qur'an is the same thing, only for different people.

The koran is false writing. One of the factors for determining whether a book is scripture is the necessity that it agrees with revelation that has been previously given by the Lord. The denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a glaring witness to the fact that Islam is not in accordance to the word and will of God, and allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Big Book of Science was NOT written for atheists, but for the whole planet, for theists and atheists of all sorts.

I would agree for the most part. There are many Christian Scientists that would agree with unbelieving scientists on most things.

But the correlation to "sacred writings" for secular humanism would be more like the sacred writings of the cult Jehovah's Witnesses: their "authoritative source" is, like those of science, everchanging. Watchtower publications (and prophets) change positions on issues when there is a contradiction that is discovered that necessitates the need for change.

Not trying to be demeanig toward science, it is a necessary process in life. As we better understand the universe we live in, we better understand current knowledge. When man learned of the sub-atomic structure of the universe it completely changed the outlook on prior knowledge. What science has not achieved is the ability to go beyong the structure they are now aware of.

I believe there is a spiritual element to existence, held by some to be an electro-chemical element. Whatever, one side sees it one way, the other another.



(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  It is NOT a sacred book for anyone,

Sorry, but you cannot speak for all atheists. There are those that look to the information that science provides to be unquestionable. Fossils are an unquestionable proof of an old earth, for example. And just like JWs look to Watchtower publications for doctrine, so too do atheists. Ironically, both groups declare the other for...not believing.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  it is a book for learning new things, as opposed to the Bible, which is a religious text for people who believe it to be The Word of God.

The difference between the two is similar to the difference between the scripture and doctrine of cults and the Word of God: the word of God and it's doctrine have not changed.

While God has brought about the New Covenant and knowledge has been expanded, this is not a change, but fulfillment of promises He made.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  So you CAN NOT compare these two, they do not fit into same category.

I think the comparison is easily seen.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Even if someone does consider some scientific books as sacred,

Some do.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  it not something you can generalize to ALL the atheists, because we are not affiliated with the same group, as opposed to Christians who ALL worship the Bible as The Word of God,

This is no different than the differences in Christians: you have those associated with the Church (the Body of Christ which is comprised of born again believers) who are not actually Christians, those that are but are nominal (and this is usually due to their lack of growth in knowledge and understanding), and those that are mature (having having studied and been taught by the Spirit of God).

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  and therefore the Bible is a sacred book for ALL those who call themselves Christians.

How I wish that were true. The reverse is actually true, and it is a small percentage of Modern Christendom that truly revere the Bible.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  For different affiliations of Christians you have different translations,

No, not really. Of the many translations you will find some of each in every denomination...even in KJVonly congregations...lol.

One bit of advice I always give to the beginning student of scripture is...we don't stop at a translation, but look at the original language and seek to put that in it's historical-grammatical context.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  to be more "made for them",

You are confusing a translation with the efforts of JWs, for instance, who's "translation" has been denounced by true scholars of the original languages.

The purpose of a translation is to translate the original language into a common (or dominant) language so that those that do not read the original can, for themselves, read the word of God. Many of the translations were efforts by, I believe, sincere believers who had a healthy fear of God, and would not dare to change the intent of what is in scripture. This cannot be said of the New World Translation, which did do what you suggest, that is, it changed the content that the intent might better suit their doctrine, which is in contradiction with what is taught in scripture.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  and that does not apply to science, one book is made for everybody, we do not have different translations for different kinds of groups.

Comparing apples and oranges. But, the science book of the public school may not be the one for the creationist. And unless it is just a matter of dismissal, and a refusal to acknowledge another belief system (rather than evolution), there are legitimate reasons for believers to take a creationist view.

And I will break this up here.

Continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 09:22 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  MORALITY is supposed to come from within us.

Where is that taught? Is this your opinion or is there a book that teaches this?

I am sure you are aware of scripture's teaching of the curse this world is under, which has left man in a "fallen" state, separated from God. That is my position. While I believe that man is capable, apart from God, of accomplishing great and good things, I do not believe that man is capable of being without evil. This is called a sin nature by many believers.

But let's go back to this statement:

Quote:MORALITY is supposed to come from within us.


Do you believe that men are born moral? Could you explain the evil men do?

Even those that seem "good" by all outside appearances, have, I believe, the potential for murder, lying, stealing...

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Most religious people say that atheists are not moral people because we do not know the Word of God, and therefore we can not be moral.

Perhaps most religious people you have been exposed to. But, just as I try not to put all atheists in the same box, please do not put all "religious people" in the same box.

It is foolish to deny that atheists cannot be moral, cannot do good...as a believer I view this as a direct result of the fact that originally, God created man in His own likeness and image. Not all of that has been lost.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Now this is kinda stupid and retarded, if you follow some kind of laws (in this case moral laws) because of some kind of scripture

Could we also say that it is stupid and retarded to follow a belief in evolution because of some kind of scinence book?

That works both ways.

Let me ask this: do children naturally do good? Are they not instructed in how they are to behave, what they can do, and what they can't do?

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  and because you are scared of eternal torment,

This is a healthy fear that leads to repentance. Most people have a knowledge (or at least a core belief) that there is "life" after death. Many people seek to answer this question: what do I do to avoid Hell?

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  then you are not a moral person, you are a scared person.

Fear does not negate the possibilty of morality.

Most that study scripture have a fear of eternal judgment, this is just part and parcel of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. God will speak to the heart of a person concerning the fact of their separation from Him, and the eternal consequences of that separation.

There are many charlatans that have no fear of Hell, no fear of God, and are completely devoid of marality. I ask you: is it moral to wrest the word of God to further personal agenda and bilk millions of their money?

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  On the other hand if you reject all those "books of morality" and you still keep your morality, because you feel it is the right thing and not because you are afraid for your soul, then you are a truly moral person who knows the value of it.

But this "morality," if it is present, comes from somewhere. It is the result of teaching...that cannot be denied.

You believe it comes from the inner person, but again...do children naturally do what is moral? Or are they taught in the way they should go by the parents?

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  The aspects of atheism (whatever that is suppose to be) do not drive our morality, our morality comes from within us, that is who and what we are in nature, it is a part of our mind and body. Morality in Christianity comes form a Book and that Book (the Bible) is full of all sorts of WRONG morality, I do not wish to cherry-pick or quote the Bible, but I am sure you know a lot of quotes about slavery, women rights and similar...

Well, this is why I am here: you condemn scripture as being filled with immorality, and (curiously enough)...wrong morality.

That is an interesting way to put it.

The fact is, scripture is definitely filled with immorality, the problem is...you are ascribing this immorality to God, rather than ascribing it to the people who committed it.

Again, this is why I am here, I will be glad to look at the reasons you consider the Bible as "immoral," God as immoral, as well as the notion that the morality of the Christian comes only from scripture. The fact is, scripture teaches that it is the indwelling of God in the born-again believer that allows the believer (who still resides in unredeemed flesh) to live in a manner that is pleasing to Him.


(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  On the part of ATHEISM/RELIGION I really can not answer, because I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I think, after reading a later post, you got the gist.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Atheism IS NOT a religion.

This verifies that.

Look, I know this is an offensive concept to you and other atheists, but look at the facts. If we take a scientific approach to the issue the conclusion can only result in determining that atheism is a belief system, the fact that it is a denial of the existence of God being an irrelevant issue. It has many of the earmarks of a religion, and relying on the nominal position of many does not negate the fact that for some at least, atheists, that is...it is their religion.

Consider:

Quote:I pretty strongly believe there is NO God at all.

Not all atheists will admit theirs is a belief system. I appreciate and applaud your honesty.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  You gave me some definitions for "A Religion", I have discarded all of those definitions and showed you that atheism does not fit into that definition, yet you still insist it does.

How can we discard a generally accepted description? We can't change the facts to better support our positions.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Why do you do it, and how is it that you think this way, is beyond me.

Thankfully, I do not look to myself to change minds. Only God can do that, and in many cases...it is an unstoppable process that is contrary to a current belief system.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Let me try again. Atheism has no symbols, not in a religious sense.

This is your opinion, sorry.

How many beleivers do you know that have a fish with feet symbol on their car? lol

There probably is some believer out there with a sense of humor that has one...lol).

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Those symbols that people use are not general and do not apply on every atheist, not like religious symbols do.

Again, not all Christians use symbols. Some see this as idolatry.

Of course not all atheists use symbols. But the next time you are driving around, take notice of the symbols people attach to their vehicles.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  We do not use any rituals.

Some do. Some even meet for their daily spiritual enrichment, like going to a forum for example, to strengthen their beliefs, to meet with those of like-minded beliefs.

To think that a ritual has to pertain only to the sacrifice of animals or some other easily recognized action denies that we all have our "rituals."


Quote:rit·u·al

[ ríchoo əl ]

1.established formal behavior: an established and prescribed pattern of observance, e.g. in a religion

2.performance of formal acts: the observance of actions or procedures in a set, ordered, and ceremonial way

3.system of rites: the system of set procedures and actions of a group

Ritualistic behavior cannot be confined to "religious" activity.


(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  We have no sacred book or holly texts.

You may not, perhaps, but again, you cannot speak for all atheists.

When I work in the homes of atheists, they will, just like most people, have books that pertain to their interests and beliefs.

Of course, not all people collect books.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  We do not take science and claim it to be "our Bible",

Again, apples and oranges: it is the knowledge of science, which is the popular atheistic view, which is considered unquestionable. The belief that this is truth is stronger in many atheists than belief in God or a god is in many believers. But as I said, many beleivers, by their actions, betray their unbelief.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  we simply love science because it gives us more knowledge.

You say this as if science is secluded to atheists...lol.

Are you aware that interpretation of scripture is...a scientific process? With generally accepted rules, which when one goes outside of, shows that they have left the scientific process? This is why we have Bible Colleges. Master's College and Seminary gets, ands I loosely quote, "...the cream of the crop from all around the country. The first thing we have to do before we can teach them Greek or Hebrew...is teach them English!"

I think it is said that 3/4 % of theapplicants fail the entrance exam.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  We use our logic and our minds to determine our morality.

Christians do not?

We read the actions of men in scripture and discern whether those actions are moral and within the will of God...not pick and choose how scripture teaches morality.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Actually, we do not determine our morality, it is something that comes naturally to us.

As a student of scripture, I have to disagree. But, that is just what I have learned from scripture.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  All these things are the opposite of religions and how we define religions,

I just don't see it that way.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  so that brings us to conclusion that atheism is not a religion, but the opposite of the religion.

No such conclusion can be made, at least, it cannot be made and keep all relevant factors included. We would, as you say you have done, "Throw out certain definitions," which weaken our position, apparently.


(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Bugs Bunny said it good.

That he did...lol.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  In the end you just ignored everything I told you, didn't even try to understand it, and you simply said that atheism does fit into definition of the "religion". I really do not see how can you do that. Try to read everything again, think about it for a minute and then give me the answer to every of these claims.

I do not see how I did. If you could show me this from the public record, I will gladly re-address the issue.

Although, in light of the fact that my posts have been modified without my knowledge or approval (like the link that was changed), it may be that what I have or have not said might be called into question. In all of my time on the forums I have never seen someone stoop to such deceitful practice as to alter the content of someone else's posts.

While not entirely surprising, it is disturbing.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Convince me that I am wrong and that atheism is a religion by proving your point with more examples.

As I said...I cannot change your mind. Most people will reject any commentary that is in direct contradiction to their own beliefs. This is equally true of atheists and believers.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Wink

Yes, this is a "wink".

Peace.

The novelty has worn off...lol.


I will have to continue here. I will try to quickly respond to the last part of this, but I am going to get in trouble if I stay much longer...lol.

Continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  P.S.
Sorry, didn't see the previous post. No I do not see the parallels. I do realize how can you see atheism as a religion, but it is because you still have the wrong view about us, you still have much to learn, young padawan.
I can understand that, but would just encourage you to give it some thought.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  I pretty strongly believe there is NO God at all.
It is an ever-increasingly popular position.
If you ask me, this is the position of most of our country, despite what the polls and stats say.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  I am not agnostic, I am an atheist, full blown, 100%. Why, you might ask? It all started because of the Church, Christianity mostly, I was raised as a Roman-Catholic, but then I started to listen and read, to explore, so the first thing I noticed is that the Bible is the foundation of my religion, then I realized that if the foundation is not solid, the whole thing is not solid.
Sorry for your RC upbringing. Martin Luther had a similar experience.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  The Bible is not solid for me because of the million of translations,
There are not "millions of translations," merely millions (billions, probably) of coppies of various translations. Most translations do not alter doctrinal content, nor are any major doctrines affected. One can come to the same conclusions with a KJV, NIV, take your pick.
The alterations of the NWT (based in part on a Christadelphian translation) stand alone in that it claims to be a translation, though it is denounced by most scholars for it's alterations which do not stay true to a scientific approach to translation.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  everyone is different
If you care to discuss the differences, I would be glad to look at this issue with you.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  and we all know how the Bible was changed during history,
On the contrary, we know the scriptures remain relatively unchanged in doctrinal content.
There are many translations, scribal errors, scribal insertions that could be called "changes," but as I said, doctrinal content remains intact.
Unlike the claim of certain religions to have further revelation that contains doctrine that contradicts that which God has previously revealed.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  specially in the year 325. A.D.
If you could expand on that I would appreciate it.
Keep in mind that because a highly visible group declares something to be sound doctrine, does not mean that it is. Catholicism has, in my view, those that are saved, but Catholic doctrine itself (which many Catholics do not even know beyond a nominal understanding or awareness) falls short in many areas. This because they fell into the same error that many false religions and cults have, which is to depart from the actual teaching of scripture, and to include the commandments of men, and even worse, to elevate the commandments of men above the doctrine of scripture.
Even the Jews fell into this error, creating tradition that superceded the commands of God.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  So I started to feel betrayed, I felt that the priests were lying to me all the time and the worst part of it was that they knew about it.
I can understand that, but I think there are those among the priesthood who are sincere in their belief in Catholic doctrine as authoritative. I have debated some well-meaning Catholics that actually knew and understood Catholic doctrine, and I can see how they would embrace certain teachings. Some of them viewing Mary as "Co-Redemptrix."
Which is a completely anti-biblical doctrine.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Every priest knows how the Bible was changed by MAN and for the MAN, how religions were changed to fit the king, the Church, the power-hungry.
The problem is...I view Catholic doctrine to be in many major doctrinal errors...to be in error. We would probably be in agreement concerning some of the things taught by them, though rather than a rejection of all biblical doctrine, I can point to scripture that I believe gives the intent of those doctrines.

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  So insted of converting to some other religion, I decided that all the religions are like that and that is true. Also, I had my sorts of enlightenments and none of them had anything to do with any God, but with nature.
There are many that are raised up in the Church, or churches, or some type of religious environment that depart from that group. Many of these later in life will begin again to examine this question, some will go on to respond to the Holy Spirit and be saved.
But many will not. Human nature will drive some to embrace their own philospohies, harboring a deep anger towards their "religious upbringing."
I look at this as the fruit of man's fallen nature, while the unbeliever will, understandably to them, look at it as enlightenment.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  And do not confuse me with some wicca or druid, when I say nature, I mean nature as something normal, that surrounds me and you.
Aactually, the Native American Indian was my first thought...lol. No offense, by the way, I have NAI in my family tree...lol.
You are supposing that I am one that immediately correlates your views to an immoral and ridiculous mindset, but I do not. I like to think I understand why people leave the Church, or churches, or whatever. It is easily summed up in this quote:
There is no perfect Church, and if you find one, don't join it...you'll only wreck it.
lol...while man remains in an unredeemed state upon this earth...there will be problems.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  Do not think I did not question God, Church and my faith, I did, a lot, then I started to read about all sorts of things and little by little all the cubes began to come together and now I am here as an opened, active atheist.
Two things: first, knowing your RC upbringing, I understand how one would reject their doctrine.
Secondly: think back to your conversion, your departure from the faith you had at one time, and consider, truthfully, how the material you exposed yourself to impacted your conversion/departure.
Would you be honest to admit it if the reason you embraced atheism, in large part, had to do not only with the anger you felt...but with the material you exposed yourself to? Can you say that these teachings did not cater to wht you felt inside?

(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  I believe that humans have the need to believe in the supernatural, I believe that the humans have problems with saying goodbye to our loved ones, I believe the humans have problems accepting death as something normal. So with this basic human psychology and human fears, we have invented religions and gods, it gives us comfort, it gives us hope (the afterlife), it makes us feel more important, it gives us laws to live by, it gives us morality (if we do not have it), it makes us better persons (if we are not already).
I would agree with all of this with the exception of "makng up religion," in regards that it places all religion as an activity of futility.
I believe that God revealed that which He meant for man to know about Him, and that He did that over a period of time, meaning, He did not all at once reveal His plans for mankind.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  At least it is what people think. But if you are aware of this, then the religion and god becomes obsolete and unnecessary, so my conclusion is that "they" have been lying to us and that there is no God, we are humans, we can do all this ourselves, we do not need a Creator to exist or to better ourselves.
If you are "enlightened," right?
I can see that you still harbor a hatred for priests. Let it go. At the least, take on a neutral position that you profess to have concerning the existence of God. That kind of thing can eat you up.
(12-10-2011 05:34 AM)Filox Wrote:  We have the Universe that created our planet Earth, we have the Sun to keep our planet warm, we have plants to give us oxygen, we have rain and rivers to drink, we have fish and deers to make food, we have nature to support us... I do not need God to explain my existence, I can accept that there are things we do not know yet, but in time we might learn then. Maybe I will not live that long, but it matters not, I am glad we are moving forward and I see the progress of human race.
.
Quote: I do not need God to explain my existence
Do you need nature to explain your existence? If the universe just happened, then you and I...just happened. Right?

Quote:I can accept that there are things we do not know yet, but in time we might
learn then.
I agree whole-heartedly. One day, all will be revealed. Science has, I believe, only scratched the surface of what this universe has to offer...if they could just pick up the pace on water-powered cars, I would be happy...lol.

Quote:Maybe I will not live that long, but it matters not, I am glad we are moving
forward and I see the progress of human race.

I am sorry to have to take a negative position on this one, but I see a continual downward spiral for the human race.
As we look forward, I am convinced that we are seeing the breakdown of civilization even in our own country. Morality, or the lack thereof, is seen as a relative matter: if you don't like the way I live...who cares. That seems to be the current trend.
The election of a President that says both he approves of gay marriage yet is also an advocate of Islam, which imposes a death penalty for homosexuality, and the fact that people will cast thier vote for him, completely unaware that they may just be casting a vote for their own deaths...astounds me.
That is the state I see, and, I believe that it will get worse, fulfilling the prophecy of scripture, which will culminate in the destruction of many individuals, regardless of position and belief.
Okay, sorry for the length, but I tremendously enjoyed the response...thanks. Keep in mind nothing is meant to offend, that is just something that will happen when opposing viewpoints meet.
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
28-05-2012, 10:28 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
Hello S.T. Ranger! I'm reading through your responses towards Filox and something interesting caught my eye.
Quote:Again, apples and oranges: it is the knowledge of science, which is the popular atheistic view, which is considered unquestionable. The belief that this is truth is stronger in many atheists than belief in God or a god is in many believers. But as I said, many beleivers, by their actions, betray their unbelief.
A misconception/strawman here. Science is never unquestionable in the first place. It is precisely the questionable nature of science that we make progress understanding how the natural world works. New models can overthrow old models just through finding a few strong contradictions against the old model. For instance: Light was once thought as a wave, but experiments on the photoelectric effect proved a new model of light in which Einstein proposed, the particle nature of light.

Scientific models and being refined as we find new evidence. If science is and remains unquestionable, we will be still stuck with outdated concepts like "All matter is made up of four elements" and "The well-being of a human depends on the balance of four humours". Maybe a better way to phrase our viewpoint would be: "We trust the scientific method more than superstition"

Just my few cents Smile

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 10:59 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(28-05-2012 10:28 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Hello S.T. Ranger! I'm reading through your responses towards Filox and something interesting caught my eye.
Quote:Again, apples and oranges: it is the knowledge of science, which is the popular atheistic view, which is considered unquestionable. The belief that this is truth is stronger in many atheists than belief in God or a god is in many believers. But as I said, many beleivers, by their actions, betray their unbelief.
A misconception/strawman here. Science is never unquestionable in the first place. It is precisely the questionable nature of science that we make progress understanding how the natural world works. New models can overthrow old models just through finding a few strong contradictions against the old model. For instance: Light was once thought as a wave, but experiments on the photoelectric effect proved a new model of light in which Einstein proposed, the particle nature of light.

Scientific models and being refined as we find new evidence. If science is and remains unquestionable, we will be still stuck with outdated concepts like "All matter is made up of four elements" and "The well-being of a human depends on the balance of four humours". Maybe a better way to phrase our viewpoint would be: "We trust the scientific method more than superstition"

Just my few cents Smile
Hello RW, nice to meet you and thanks for the input.
I do have to say that you basically end by saying exactly what I was trying to get across. It is a science versus faith debate for most, the one side rejecting the other side's position, claiming that only their side is correct, though we have many examples of crossing the aisles in between...lol.
I don't think, in context of the reply anyway, that this could be called a strawman, as it is not particular science or conclusion(s) of science I am referring to, but Science itself.
In context, a correlation between scripture and the many, many publications of science, is sought to be made, and this is not really the same, hence...apples and oranges. I tried to give what might be viewed as an equivalent, Watchtower publication, to better make the point.
On perhaps a different note, and for the sake of discussion, I would just ask, if Science was abandoned every time some scientist somewhere demonstrates new knowledge that denies the validity of a previously held position, would you say that this was a loss of "trust" in science? Is there that much difference between "trust" and "faith?"
It would be ludicrous to abandon Science because a former understanding was either disproved or expanded, yet, as in the case of the member (and others I have talked to), abandoning faith because they discern an error in their professed faith (denomination)...is completely acceptable.
Again, thanks for the response, I appreciate it very much.
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:29 AM
RE: They actually say this stuff?
(28-05-2012 10:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 10:28 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Hello S.T. Ranger! I'm reading through your responses towards Filox and something interesting caught my eye.
A misconception/strawman here. Science is never unquestionable in the first place. It is precisely the questionable nature of science that we make progress understanding how the natural world works. New models can overthrow old models just through finding a few strong contradictions against the old model. For instance: Light was once thought as a wave, but experiments on the photoelectric effect proved a new model of light in which Einstein proposed, the particle nature of light.

Scientific models and being refined as we find new evidence. If science is and remains unquestionable, we will be still stuck with outdated concepts like "All matter is made up of four elements" and "The well-being of a human depends on the balance of four humours". Maybe a better way to phrase our viewpoint would be: "We trust the scientific method more than superstition"

Just my few cents Smile
Hello RW, nice to meet you and thanks for the input.
I do have to say that you basically end by saying exactly what I was trying to get across. It is a science versus faith debate for most, the one side rejecting the other side's position, claiming that only their side is correct, though we have many examples of crossing the aisles in between...lol.
I don't think, in context of the reply anyway, that this could be called a strawman, as it is not particular science or conclusion(s) of science I am referring to, but Science itself.
In context, a correlation between scripture and the many, many publications of science, is sought to be made, and this is not really the same, hence...apples and oranges. I tried to give what might be viewed as an equivalent, Watchtower publication, to better make the point.
On perhaps a different note, and for the sake of discussion, I would just ask, if Science was abandoned every time some scientist somewhere demonstrates new knowledge that denies the validity of a previously held position, would you say that this was a loss of "trust" in science? Is there that much difference between "trust" and "faith?"
It would be ludicrous to abandon Science because a former understanding was either disproved or expanded, yet, as in the case of the member (and others I have talked to), abandoning faith because they discern an error in their professed faith (denomination)...is completely acceptable.
Again, thanks for the response, I appreciate it very much.
God bless.
Hello S.T. Ranger, thank you for your reply. To answer your question, when some scientist somewhere demonstrates new knowledge which has the capability to overturn previously existing models, there will be resistance of course. People see this scientist's theories as absurd, and may not believe him at the start. It will be up to this budding scientist to demonstrate his theories through experimentation. Other scientists can chime in and replicate the experiments of this scientists. If the experiments do indeed prove that this new scientist is correct, the old model is gradually abandoned for this new model. For instance the wave-particle duality model of light replacing the wave model of light through experiments such as the photoelectric effect. However, if the experiments other scientists do fail to replicate the results of the scientist even if all conditions and equipment are equivalent, the new theory or discovery is abandoned, regardless of its potential to change humanity. For instance, experiments on cold fusion. If the scientist still believes that he is right, it is still up to the scientist to prove himself right using a new and better experiment.


But with regards to faith, we can see that people's ideas of God's work is interpreted differently as time goes by. Theistic evolution is not a common concept we hear before and during Darwin's time, and it is a very recent stance some theists take. What people believe changes along with how society thinks. The stance of homosexuality has shifted in some denominations to become more accepting of them. That seems to be a parallel to scientific progress and development, with the evolution of how people think and such.

If for the sake of argument, a single religion is a field of science, and how the religion progress is similar to how science changes within this field, by right and the end of the day, there will be only one single sect remaining, with the other sects long lost in time. Even if there are some disagreements which seemingly split the single sect to two opposing camps, the two camps will reconcile as soon as possible, and move on as a whole. If science works exactly like how religion works nowadays, all the outdated scientific concepts will still stay and greatly hinder progress. Doctors argue whether to let blood out to cure a person's fever or simply giving the person a pill, there will still be an argument over whether to use A.C. or D.C. to transmit electricity...

If the Catholics, Protestants, Methodists and all the other sects are willing to compromise, and work together to find the common interpretation to the Scripture instead of arguing who has the correct interpretation of the Scripture, then yes, I dare say religion now progresses like how science progresses.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: