The Christian Agenda Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
"The Vatican has published everything about Fatima to prove it is a miracle.‘’

By whose law does one follow that just because something cannot be scientifically
explained it’s automatically from the GOOD side of the Supernatural?
[/quote]

Why don’t you start your own thread about this so that you can be ignored there. I won’t discuss it with you, because you are dishonest and pretty much a jerk and it’s impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you about sensitive topics.
I will gladly discuss these and other topics with cleared, well educated and reasoned individuals who have no agenda other than a mutual understanding for another’s point of view. You are not that. Have you been able to demonstrate in the past you are capable of understanding and reason, then I would not have stonewalled you. Even Flamer, who is one clearly pissed off individual, has a modicum of reason to him.[/quote]

Colonel MusTard

Pat this is our new nickname for Karado. Varq came up with it.

382

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Atheism is not a belief system in and of itself.
[/quote]

If you repeat a lie often enough…[/quote]

I love that. It’s my favorite saying. Seeing as how anything you believe, whether you believe it to exist or not exist, is a belief. Belief in that which is not, is still belief, because it lacks proof. Further, it is a belief in that God must be replaced. Because we have this tiny little problem of existence. And it either exists for no reason or for a reason. Since it cannot logically exist for no reason, a reason must be postulated that is not God, yet explains existence itself. Atheists would have a much easier time is nothing existed. But I love listening to the theories. I just like watching people paint themselves into corners.

383

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The statement was meant to be a sarcastic comment on the statement that atheism could be considered a form of religion.

[/quote]

yawn

This is getting tiresome. You want to play the semantics game. You want to dwell on nuances.

Okey dokey. How 'bout this? Atheism IS a defacto or quasi religion. Does that satisfy you? It’s devout adherents must rely on faith for its fundamental assertions. It’s devout adherents spread their faith with a religious-like fervor. I could go on and on but I have done so in the recent years, the years of your sabbatical, and don’t feel compelled to rehash it again.

Thing is…some of its (atheism) followers have conceded this point right here on these pages. so it’s interesting that a non-follower, you, Sir Varq of the Open Mind, is disputing this.
[/quote]

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of a deity . Plain and simple. It is the absence of a religion
[/quote]

I would agree atheism is not a religion, but atheism is a religious belief. The explanation is simple. Whether you answer yes or no to the existence of God, you are dealing with a religious question, and whatever answer you have for it is a religious answer. The beauty of it, is that it is a question you cannot ignore.
Now that in itself is a profound statement. It’s a question that has to be dealt with, nobody can ignore the question.

384

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, to an atheist, idolatry doesn’t exist. It’s part of “bronze-age mythology.” They can love and pursue money at all costs. Make basketball players and mma fighters into heroic figures. Hold and act on any number of philosophies dealing with distribution of resources. Etc. So long as it doesn’t literally involve belief in a deity.

Edit: It’s like there’s a bible based argument for when an atheist stops being an atheist. Based on a general view of idolatry. “Money is his god!” No, to him it’s just money. He doesn’t believe in any gods. He knows very well that it’s simply a material thing used to trading for material things. The football star? While celebrated, he’s just a guy who’ll eventually get old and be replaced. A completely material creature. [/quote]
Not all religions are actually defined by beliefs in supernatural deities.

For example many forms of Buddhism don’t really deal with that

BC had a thread about worshipping the golden calf, symbolically, today

Not people actually busting out golden calfs, but being overly concerned with money and not concerned enough about each other

By BC that was considered idolatry… I think Varq would agree. Varq doesn’t care if supposed atheists argue otherwise - there are no atheists, only idolaters. I estimate BC might agree - tho maybe not. In any event Varq isn’t saying anything super cutting edge and insane (no offense Varq)[/quote]

Buddhism deals with it in a different way. There ‘God Concept’ is very different than ours in that they don’t identify God as a ‘particular’, but they claim to see ‘it’ in everything. It’s more like the ‘Force’. A unity of being that runs through everything. They just never did the math, I reckon, or they don’t compartmentalize like western thinkers.

385

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

another Catholic vs Protestant bashing
[/quote]

Now that this thread has died down a bit, I was hoping to come back to this.

Can someone put this into a sports analogy for me?

A lot fo the religious discussion is well and above over my head, and this is one of those things.

Thanks. [/quote]

The Catholic Church is the NFL.

The Protestants broke away from the NFL to form the AFL. The two leagues battled for a while, until the AFL was absorbed for the most part by the NFL.

Today the NFL is monolithic and well-established, but still faces competition from the more-recently formed AFC, which includes some of the teams that originally comprised the old AFL.

There are fierce rivalries, and the fans are all rabidly convinced that their team is the best, but it’s all the same game.

The only thing the fans can agree on is that their game is far superior to rugby (Judaism), soccer (Islam), cricket (Hinduism) and tennis (Buddhism), and that people who don’t really give a shit about sports (atheists) must be fucking weird. [/quote]

Not bad… I think you did a good job with this analogy.

386

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
"The Vatican has published everything about Fatima to prove it is a miracle.‘’

By whose law does one follow that just because something cannot be scientifically
explained it’s automatically from the GOOD side of the Supernatural?
[/quote]

Why don’t you start your own thread about this so that you can be ignored there. I won’t discuss it with you, because you are dishonest and pretty much a jerk and it’s impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you about sensitive topics.
I will gladly discuss these and other topics with cleared, well educated and reasoned individuals who have no agenda other than a mutual understanding for another’s point of view. You are not that. Have you been able to demonstrate in the past you are capable of understanding and reason, then I would not have stonewalled you. Even Flamer, who is one clearly pissed off individual, has a modicum of reason to him.[/quote]

Colonel MusTard

Pat this is our new nickname for Karado. Varq came up with it.[/quote]

I like it…

387

The universe is eternal.
Sometimes, life emerges.

^ what is religious about this?

388

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Another thing. Why would the skeptical, scientific minded (or bust), atheist mount a moralistic attack on any religion? Religion, according to this mindset, could not be immoral or moral. Evil or good. Right or wrong. That requires a belief in the existence of something (good/evil) that can’t be observed and measured. Which is faith. A big concession, without even going further. But let’s do so. It’s faith in ‘laws’ which are meant to inform the moral behavior of intelligent and self-aware beings. Which screams intent. Which screams the intent of an author.

However, maybe moralistic criticism of religious behavior isn’t to be taken literally. Indeed, it could just be the utterance of a moral relativist. But then who cares? If he himself doesn’t believe he is, in reality, correct in his moral judgement of religious behavior and thought, why would I? He can say red is the best color, and I can say blue is. And just as with favorite color, he must know there is no correct view, in reality, concerning the good/evil impact of religion on mankind.[/quote]

You bring up a good point. If you believe in moral relativism, as many atheists do, then calling anything out as ‘evil’ is a tacit admission that ‘good’ exists. And if ‘good’ exists, that feed right into the moral arguments for the existence of God.
Or you could just say rightly as a relativist, that these were just actions whose value was determined by the people performing them and they are neither good nor evil and just another thing.
You cannot condemn something as evil, or bad if you don’t believe in such a thing.
Atheist arguments are so full of holes I often wonder if they really thought about it, or they are just so pissed off, they cannot.

389

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The universe is eternal.
Sometimes, life emerges.

^ what is religious about this?
[/quote]

Well for one thing, it’s flat wrong. The second thing is that even if the universe were eternal, it doesn’t explain it’s existence.

You’re right, that’s not a religious statement. But the universe is quite finite. It’s a logically fallacious statement because it’s circular reasoning. Things are not factors of themselves, it’s impossible for them to be so.

390

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Another thing. Why would the skeptical, scientific minded (or bust), atheist mount a moralistic attack on any religion? Religion, according to this mindset, could not be immoral or moral. Evil or good. Right or wrong. That requires a belief in the existence of something (good/evil) that can’t be observed and measured. Which is faith. A big concession, without even going further. But let’s do so. It’s faith in ‘laws’ which are meant to inform the moral behavior of intelligent and self-aware beings. Which screams intent. Which screams the intent of an author.

However, maybe moralistic criticism of religious behavior isn’t to be taken literally. Indeed, it could just be the utterance of a moral relativist. But then who cares? If he himself doesn’t believe he is, in reality, correct in his moral judgement of religious behavior and thought, why would I? He can say red is the best color, and I can say blue is. And just as with favorite color, he must know there is no correct view, in reality, concerning the good/evil impact of religion on mankind.[/quote]

You bring up a good point. If you believe in moral relativism, as many atheists do, then calling anything out as ‘evil’ is a tacit admission that ‘good’ exists. And if ‘good’ exists, that feed right into the moral arguments for the existence of God.
Or you could just say rightly as a relativist, that these were just actions whose value was determined by the people performing them and they are neither good nor evil and just another thing.
You cannot condemn something as evil, or bad if you don’t believe in such a thing.
Atheist arguments are so full of holes I often wonder if they really thought about it, or they are just so pissed off, they cannot.[/quote]

There is a supernatural/christian god or there isn’t. It seems to me here and in previous posts that you and Sloth are arguing for the existence of a divine moral code based on the consequences of not having one, i.e., the consequence of not having one is too hideous to imagine, therefore, there must be a god.

Isn’t the answer to whether man did or didn’t create the christian moral code dependent on whether god actually exists? In other words, I don’t see how you can say belief in a divine moral code is “better” than not believing in it based on the consequences, because either it exists or it doesn’t independent of our faith or what we actually believe.

392

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Another thing. Why would the skeptical, scientific minded (or bust), atheist mount a moralistic attack on any religion? Religion, according to this mindset, could not be immoral or moral. Evil or good. Right or wrong. That requires a belief in the existence of something (good/evil) that can’t be observed and measured. Which is faith. A big concession, without even going further. But let’s do so. It’s faith in ‘laws’ which are meant to inform the moral behavior of intelligent and self-aware beings. Which screams intent. Which screams the intent of an author.

However, maybe moralistic criticism of religious behavior isn’t to be taken literally. Indeed, it could just be the utterance of a moral relativist. But then who cares? If he himself doesn’t believe he is, in reality, correct in his moral judgement of religious behavior and thought, why would I? He can say red is the best color, and I can say blue is. And just as with favorite color, he must know there is no correct view, in reality, concerning the good/evil impact of religion on mankind.[/quote]

You bring up a good point. If you believe in moral relativism, as many atheists do, then calling anything out as ‘evil’ is a tacit admission that ‘good’ exists. And if ‘good’ exists, that feed right into the moral arguments for the existence of God.
Or you could just say rightly as a relativist, that these were just actions whose value was determined by the people performing them and they are neither good nor evil and just another thing.
You cannot condemn something as evil, or bad if you don’t believe in such a thing.
Atheist arguments are so full of holes I often wonder if they really thought about it, or they are just so pissed off, they cannot.[/quote]

There is a supernatural/christian god or there isn’t. It seems to me here and in previous posts that you and Sloth are arguing for the existence of a divine moral code based on the consequences of not having one, i.e., the consequence of not having one is too hideous to imagine, therefore, there must be a god.

Isn’t the answer to whether man did or didn’t create the christian moral code dependent on whether god actually exists? In other words, I don’t see how you can say belief in a divine moral code is “better” than not believing in it based on the consequences, because either it exists or it doesn’t independent of our faith or what we actually believe.
[/quote]

It has no meaning without a concrete basis. Better or worse is soley in the eye of the beholder. Hence the rapist or murderer is perfectly justified in their actions so long as they think they are right. That’s relativism. There is no good or bad, better or worse. There is only like and dislike.

393

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Another thing. Why would the skeptical, scientific minded (or bust), atheist mount a moralistic attack on any religion? Religion, according to this mindset, could not be immoral or moral. Evil or good. Right or wrong. That requires a belief in the existence of something (good/evil) that can’t be observed and measured. Which is faith. A big concession, without even going further. But let’s do so. It’s faith in ‘laws’ which are meant to inform the moral behavior of intelligent and self-aware beings. Which screams intent. Which screams the intent of an author.

However, maybe moralistic criticism of religious behavior isn’t to be taken literally. Indeed, it could just be the utterance of a moral relativist. But then who cares? If he himself doesn’t believe he is, in reality, correct in his moral judgement of religious behavior and thought, why would I? He can say red is the best color, and I can say blue is. And just as with favorite color, he must know there is no correct view, in reality, concerning the good/evil impact of religion on mankind.[/quote]

You bring up a good point. If you believe in moral relativism, as many atheists do, then calling anything out as ‘evil’ is a tacit admission that ‘good’ exists. And if ‘good’ exists, that feed right into the moral arguments for the existence of God.
Or you could just say rightly as a relativist, that these were just actions whose value was determined by the people performing them and they are neither good nor evil and just another thing.
You cannot condemn something as evil, or bad if you don’t believe in such a thing.
Atheist arguments are so full of holes I often wonder if they really thought about it, or they are just so pissed off, they cannot.[/quote]

Just watch that Hitchens debate above. He does it over and over. He says there is no objective morality. And then later points to certain passages in the OT as ‘wicked.’ Hmmm. “My favorite color is blue. However, blue is not objectively the best color.” Then minutes later states that a choice of red is flatly wrong. Who cares what Hitchens believes about those passages. Despite stating it flatly, he doesn’t believe wickedness objectively even exists! I’m telling you, most atheists who claim this moral relativism, don’t believe it. They’ll deny objective morality in order to not give a foothold regarding faith, but their passionate declaration of this or that in the scriptures being evil betrays them. When they say, for the sake of argument, that if the Christian does exist, he would be an evil tyrannical God, is based off of moral principles they claim are don’t really exist.

394

On an intellectual level, why does Hitchens act as if Religion is some evil cancer on humanity? He says there is no objective morality. Because those are his personal moral beliefs? I think blue is the best color, personally. But I’m not saying it’s the good color. If, on an intellectual level, he knows his moral beliefs are nothing more than personal fancies, why does he affirmatively make value judgements about religion? Blue IS the best color. This passage IS WICKED. Religion IS a poisonous and wicked blight on humanity. Knowing they’re just personal fancies, why doesn’t he suppress them and take a neutral position. Actions are just actions. Thoughts are just thoughts. If a creature is capable of doing this or that action, then so be it.

395

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The universe is eternal.
Sometimes, life emerges.

^ what is religious about this?
[/quote]

Well for one thing, it’s flat wrong. The second thing is that even if the universe were eternal, it doesn’t explain it’s existence.

You’re right, that’s not a religious statement. But the universe is quite finite. It’s a logically fallacious statement because it’s circular reasoning. Things are not factors of themselves, it’s impossible for them to be so.[/quote]

It’s a solid theory. The universe could, in fact, just change states every now and then.
Life would just be some curious form of byproduct.
Also, infinity can mean various things.
For one, you could possibly venture beyond the border to re-appear in another area.
Or perhaps a black hole creates a whole new universe. Or both. Or …

And why is this circular reasoning?
It seems you are throwing out stuff to desperately defend your misinformed view.

Circular reasoning example: “the bible is the true word of god because the bible days so.”
Simple minds will often permute those two clauses to enjoy an devout, perpetual argument-inventing machine.

lol but your god can be eternal AND creative?
Why don’t you try to taste your own implications?
If the universe is eternal, the need for creation goes out the window.

Remember, you already stated someone must be there.
If your god can be eternal, so can my universe.

You can’t just make arguments up without swallowing them.

counterchuckle @push

396

Did anyone catch the student asking Hitchens about sex with animals? Sure he didn’t explicitly say “it’s immoral!” But he went on as if to explain why it shouldn’t be condoned, and even looked down upon. Something about if everyone was doing it, we wouldn’t propagate ourselves. At least not sufficiently. Oh, and something about a higher risk of disease. The reason why it stood out was because not long after he took Christianity to task for it’s view of homosexual sex. Hrmmm.

397

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

If the universe is eternal, the need for creation goes out the window.

[/quote]

I am not as high up on the grey matter as many of you guys, but this part of what you are saying jumped out at me.

Every scientist and physicist claim the universe started at the big bang, and that the universe WILL come to an end and die. Just like our Sun will die. Just like you had a beginning and end.

There is no evidence that the universe is eternal, so Creation is still in play and not out the window.

398

What was before the Big-Bang?
Our universe might be inside a black hole from another universe, which creation created the [a] Big-Bang.
Or maybe the universe just expands and contracts-endlessly.

Big-Bang doesn’t necessarily mean there was no other universe beforehand, probably with different physical rules.

399

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What was before the Big-Bang?
Our universe might be inside a black hole from another universe, which creation created the [a] Big-Bang.
Or maybe the universe just expands and contracts-endlessly.

Big-Bang doesn’t necessarily mean there was no other universe beforehand, probably with different physical rules.[/quote]

So ours needed an outside cause. And then that previous universe needed one itself?

400

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What was before the Big-Bang?
Our universe might be inside a black hole from another universe, which creation created the [a] Big-Bang.
Or maybe the universe just expands and contracts-endlessly.

Big-Bang doesn’t necessarily mean there was no other universe beforehand, probably with different physical rules.[/quote]

Have any Proof of that? This is always the first question a non-believer asks, so I am going to ask you.

I at least have proof that God works in my life. You don’t even have that type of proof.