A Thread about Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My money is on there having been more religious threads on PWI started by Kneedragger alone than anti-religious ones started by all of the atheists on T-Nation combined.[/quote]

He definitely skewed the statistics. Excluding him, I would say the vast majority of religious thread were started by the anti-religious. Including him, I’d say it’s about 50-50 now.
[/quote]

Not even close if we are talking about since I’ve been here on this forum. I don’t go to others. Lol at 50-50 with kneedragger. The amount of threads discussing something to do with religion vs. atheists discussing atheism is more like 90-10. Maybe even 95-5. Now it’s closer if we talk about calling one side out like below my man :slight_smile:

Hey here’s one calling out atheists you started!

https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_new_atheist_mock_and_ridicule_believers_?id=5978832&pageNo=0[/quote]

I never said I didn’t ever start one nor did I say that religious people haven’t started threads. Outside of kneedragger, most religious threads were started by atheists.

I just did a search with the key word ‘religion’:
https://www.T-Nation.com/searchResults.jsp?cx=016420786931182441572%3Akswwmllusns&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=religion&siteurl=tnation.T-Nation.com%2Ffree_online_forum%2Fworld_news_war%3FpageNo%3D1%26s%3DforumsNavTop&ref=&ss=3741j7207187j8

The majority of which were not started by believers. That does not mean ‘no believers’ it simply means anything for 51% and up.
[/quote]

This is not a way to prove or disprove what I said my man. Your search goes through the site and not this forum specifically. Sorry if I was not more clear I don’t post outisde of here or read. I have a few training posts (maybe 10) but the rest are in here and I never go in get a life or other places where religion is discussed.

I have no idea if atheists hang out there or not. Plus i’m talking of when I have been active on here. Join date is different from when I started posting more often which was 2012 presidential elections. [/quote]

What does it matter? If it becomes an active thread then people are interested if not then people are not interested.

242

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sigh… WHo started what thread is completely irrelevant.

But now that’s what we’re talking about…
[/quote]

Yeah, my bad. I should have let it go, it doesn’t matter, at all.

243

Pretty sure Pat has me blocked, and I tend to prefer to be civil these days. But I enjoy it when unkindness is visited upon the very unkind – I’m an Old Testament guy in this way if in no other – and I just can’t resist (I have also had a bad day at a bad airport, so):

[quote]pat wrote:
So, if I think Hawking is an asshole[/quote]

Why, exactly? He isn’t Dawkins, and he doesn’t act like Dawkins. Because he said god doesn’t exist? This is too much for you to bear without tearing up and flinging your own shit? I agree that his “death of philosophy” thing was, from this layman’s perspective, ill-advised and hubristic. But, then, you said that you could logically prove that god exists. So you’re both guilty of the same hubris, except that he is a theoretical physicist, and you don’t know how to do basic Aristotelian logic.

[quote]
think he’s short sighted and whack[/quote]

You – like most of us – aren’t capable of understanding the vast majority of his accumulated contribution to physics, so you can think this all you want, but it would be better for you not to.

[quote]
why can’t I call him a mean name?[/quote]

You can, obviously. It’s just that the names you chose make you

  1. Stupid

and

  1. A prick.

[quote]
What about calling him a retarded cripple is so bothersome?[/quote]

You were supposed to have learned the answer to this question around the time you were apprised of the dangers of licking (and/or sticking silverware into) electrical sockets. One hopes, for your sake, that you paid better attention to the latter lesson.

[quote]
The points where I disagree with him are not about the area of his expertise, theoretical physics, but his use of it to expand in to areas where he is not an expert which is theology, religion and philosophy.[/quote]

So he reached beyond the proper boundary of his expertise, and this calls for “retard cripple”? Seeing that you’ve done the same* hereabouts, what should we call you?

  • This is not to suggest that the boundary of your expertise is remotely comparable in dimension with Hawking’s. Or, even, that you have one at all.

[quote]
So if I feel he is deliberately misleading people, abusing his position to do so, and relying on his handicap to avoid criticism, or if I just really dislike him for any other reason, why can I not mock him?[/quote]

I do some work with undergraduates these days, and this is one of the best pieces of advice that I give them: Stop “feeling,” start “thinking.” You may feel that these things are so, but if somebody, say, asked you to evidence them, you’d do your usual thing (the one where you huff, puff, take a beating, and then scamper away to nurse your broken ego). For example, why, exactly, should anyone accept the proposition that Hawking is “relying on his handicap to avoid criticism”? What evidence do you have of this? Be specific.

[quote]
I am taking the use of mocking right out of the new atheist play book. If they can use it, why cannot I use it as well? [/quote]

Hawking is not a New Atheist of the kind you’re citing. But to answer your question: You can. It just makes you a stupid asshole.

[quote]
If it’s ok to make fun of the cripples at Lourdes, call priests child molesters, etc. Why cannot I mock a prominent atheist who put himself out there, way out there?[/quote]

Again: You can. It just makes you a stupid asshole.

Edited.

244

Fine. I’ll take the bait. Because I’m bored and apparently enjoy getting verbally abused as a way to relieve said boredom.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

The Atheist has no rule book to live up to. It has no set code to violate. It can’t be held to the same standard it holds religious others. That makes criticism from an Atheist, about the imperfections and hypocritical actions of the religious, particularly the devout, rather moot and baseless.[/quote]

Not quite.

Unless we adhere to the argument made by Pushharder that people cannot criticize Christians because they do not understand the teachings of Christ unless they take up an extensive learning of the OT and NT, it’s quite reasonable to attempt to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Christ.

Hypocrisy is, among other things, when someone claims to support a certain viewpoint and yet acts in a manner contradictory to such a viewpoint. It is perfectly fair to call out the hypocrisy of others. One doesn’t have to adhere to the same moral viewpoints to point out hypocrisy.

As for atheists having no moral rule-book to live up to- You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t actually have a moral guideline to their lives. They could be atheists who believe in basic human decency for reasons that I cannot fathom. Or they could be atheists who think all men are monsters and we’re perfectly fine with living like monsters.

In any case, I do not think it’s wise at all to make a blanket statement that atheists are the same or anything. It’s why I don’t agree with you (or was it someone else? I forget) who went and capitalized Atheist as if it means anything. Atheism is not a religious belief in the manner that Christianity is or anything. If it was, then you’d have to concede that atheists DO have a moral rule-book; just one that you’ll probably disagree with.

Point being- You’re better off confirming what they believe in by asking them before you go rip them a new one. That’s why I always take the time to find out what people believe in online by either reading what they wrote previously/ask them outright before I go word sparring with them.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

If an electrician came and rewired your home, and then the next day the garbage man came in and went on and on about how the electrician violated this code, and that procedure would you have as much faith in his opinion as you would if a different electrician came in and made the same remarks as the garbage man?[/quote]

Fair point.

Aren’t Christians supposed to know humility though?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes there is hypocrisy within the religious community, and an awful lot of it. But again, my point was that the Atheist CAN’T be a hypocrite by these same standards, so their eternal toddler-esk whining about it falls on deaf ears. Mainly because why the Atheist is pointed out as a massive hypocrite for something, they have no consequence other than temporary embarrassment. The religious, due to their faith, have significant “explaining” to do, well and beyond the opinion of other humans.
[/quote]

Going beyond what I wrote above-

Ideally any individual who has it revealed to them that they are a hypocrite will be man enough to understand that they did wrong and strive to fix their behavior. I’d say this goes beyond “temporary embarrassment”.

In any case, I often think there’s really no reason to go about criticizing Christians or trying to fix their behavior- I’d rather just ignore them and crush them under the weight of opinions of millions of others who disagree with them.

I mean, if they are right and God really does exist, then both the Christian and I will be judged at the gates of Heaven anyways. It’ll be revealed there that I was a nonbeliever and be cast into hell, and Christ will judge whether the Christian really was a believer or not.

So why do I go about criticizing Christians every once in a while?

1- Because I sometimes have nothing better to do.
2- Because I sometimes forget the above.

=D

247

[quote]pushharder wrote:

sensible people shouldn’t heed the words of huge frauds.[/quote]

Finally we agree on something in this thread.

248

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

…Unless we adhere to the argument made by Pushharder that people cannot criticize Christians because they do not understand the teachings of Christ unless they take up an extensive learning of the OT and NT…

[/quote]

I don’t think I really made myself clear or you just didn’t get my point.

It was: Christ’s teachings don’t really mean much – in fact, they can and should be discarded – IF one doesn’t understand who He claimed to be and who He actually is. To understand that one needs understand the pre-incarnate Christ, in other words His place in the Old Testament as well as His place after the gospels.

He wasn’t “just a good man.” He was who He claimed to be or a huge fraud, and sensible people shouldn’t heed the words of huge frauds.[/quote]

you just proved magick’s point

249

[quote]magick wrote:
it’s quite reasonable to attempt to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Christ.[/quote]

For the sake of argument, let’s say that this is true.

Where can I find the Atheist teachings and moral code so that I can see if those holding accountable are in fact walking the walk.

In my profession, I’m held very accountable. I signed up to belong to a group that imposes more rules upon itself than the vast majority of other professions, on a regular basis. Everyone that holds me accountable is held accountable by another, and we’re all abiding by the same rule book. Where is the Atheist’s rule book so that I might see under which standards they are supposed to hold themselves?

100% agree. That isn’t the issue though. It’s more of a “glass houses and cast stones” thing. If you live in a glass house, and cast your stones from 30 miles away from your house… Does that make you a strategic stone caster? Does it give rise to more stones being cast? Does it enable an offensive that can’t be countered?

Right, and they can be one on Monday, the other on Tuesday, and switch back to the first when challenged on Wednesday. That, in other words, is precisely the point I’m making.

The point isn’t that they are “godless heathens”. No. The point is, they have no common basis upon which to be judged. Which, in and of itself isn’t an issue, until they start judging others.

Is zero a number? Isn’t zero a “lack of value”? A lack of “something” is, in fact “something”. It’s just a different “something”. I would assume Atheists on whole DO have a moral rule book. The issue is there is no standard by which to measure they adherence to it. They can change it to suit their needs at any time.

Sure. Many don’t you say? Okay.

What are Atheists supposed to know?

How so?

I mean the only reason they have to “fix” that behavior is social pressure. If society said doing it was preferred, they would have nothing to “fix”. Conversely, if society said that behavior was preferred (making cakes for gay wedding as a Christian baker) the Christian is still obligated to ignore that, and do as their faith teaches (not bake the cake.) And if they do bake the cake, while society may be more than happy with that, they have larger issues to deal with at one point or another.

See above.

What’s worse:
a) Be crushed by the will of millions whom disagree with you
b) Abandon your faith to conform, and face those consequences?

I think you’re missing some painful steps along the way, but fair point.

While I thank you for the response, apparently what I thought was prime bait isn’t, lol. You don’t attack it directly.

250

[quote]magick wrote:

Unless we adhere to the argument made by Pushharder that people cannot criticize Christians because they do not understand the teachings of Christ unless they take up an extensive learning of the OT and NT, it’s quite reasonable to attempt to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Christ.
[/quote]
Push has a point. One who has no religious background or learning does not understand Christianity outside of a few cliche scripture passages can’t hold a Christian’s feet to the fire with regard to the practice of Christianity. If you do not know the Christian faith, you do not know what is or is not permissible for the Christian to do. That does not mean you cannot criticize another’s behavior. For example, you can criticize me for calling Hawking a crippled-retard, because you think it’s impolite, immature, crass, stupid, gay, or whatever, but your sentence should not start with "I thought Christians were supposed to…’

Atheists may very well have a moral code by which they live, they can be good people. They can even be very good people. The difference is that their morality has no basis or real meaning. The moral code is derived arbitrarily and good and bad, or evil have no real meaning and can be changed simply by an act of their own will. An atheist simply has no grounding for morality. Whether they believe that morality is a man made construct or has evolved as an adaptation morality itself is arbitrary and has no real meaning, it’s just a means to get by in life, because others do as well.
The theist believes in a moral law giver, that morality is not arbitrary, but a real entity in itself that requires a moral law giver. We even use morality as an argument for the existence of God.
But when I say ‘Moral Law Giver’ I don’t mean the Bible. I mean that the essence of God is the basis for morality and that morality extends from His nature.

Which is what, exactly?

[quote]
So why do I go about criticizing Christians every once in a while?

1- Because I sometimes have nothing better to do.
2- Because I sometimes forget the above.

=D[/quote]
We’re all human. Everybody needs criticism, nobody has “the answer”.

251

How do you hold a person accountable to _________ when you yourself do not understand _________?

252

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

sensible people shouldn’t heed the words of huge frauds.[/quote]

Finally we agree on something in this thread.
[/quote]

Push has a profound point here, though. If Christ wasn’t who he said he was, he isn’t just a fraud but hugely evil. He can’t be just a good guy who was deluded about His divine nature.

255

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you hold a person accountable to _________ when you yourself do not understand _________?[/quote]

Or you can put it like that… :slight_smile:

256

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

you just proved magick’s point[/quote]

And that is? Be precise.[/quote]

All that i understood from your post was that christians cannot be criticised with out deep study of the bible. which is what magik was saying.

258

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

you just proved magick’s point[/quote]

And that is? Be precise.[/quote]

All that i understood from your post was that christians cannot be criticised with out deep study of the bible. which is what magik was saying.[/quote]

Naw, you didn’t get it but don’t worry about it.[/quote]

lol I’m not. Not worried at all about your bullshit.

260

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…Atheists may very well have a moral code by which they live, they can be good people. They can even be very good people. The difference is that their morality has no basis or real meaning. The moral code is derived arbitrarily and good and bad, or evil have no real meaning and can be changed simply by an act of their own will. An atheist simply has no grounding for morality. Whether they believe that morality is a man made construct or has evolved as an adaptation morality itself is arbitrary and has no real meaning, it’s just a means to get by in life, because others do as well…

[/quote]

Oh, they have a moral code. It’s one they adopted. They never developed one because they are inherently incapable of such as you mentioned.

They adopted the code created by the One they insist doesn’t exist. They spit in His face and demand others, as well as their own selves, live by the very standard that says, “Don’t spit in others’ faces.”
[/quote]

As Kamui rightly pointed out, secularism was the afterbirth of Christianity. And if you think about it, the moral tenets of secularism are often Christian tenets taken to far or to some extreme.
But you are right that if you claim uphold morality, but deny even the possibility of a moral law giver, it’s a spit in the face to the Almighty. I think that’s why many atheists adopt a stance of moral relativism, i.e. morality does not exist except in our heads. It gives them an out. Even those who do not believe in Him still fear Him, at least to some degree. Rather than spit in the face of the moral law Giver, you just deny that morality actually exists.
'Cause if you uphold that morality does exist then you have recognize it’s source, otherwise your jumping out of the cab while it’s still moving. Which is otherwise known as the taxi cab fallacy, which is abandoning an argument before you can reach it’s conclusion.