The Threat of Atheism

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think the purpose in the mind of Stalin for persecuting people of religious faith was? State atheism clearly. However just because Stalin was an atheist doesn't mean that all atheists support religious persecution.

Likewise, the purpose in Pope Urban II's mind for the First Crusade was to destroy the Islamic threat to Christian Europe. However, just because Pope Urban II sanctioned it doesn't mean that it is advocated by Jesus Christ, or that all Christians support slaughtering Muslims and Jews.

All I ask is that you recognise that this reasoning against Christianity is fallacious just as the reasoning of blaming atheism for persecuting Christians, Muslims and Jews is fallacious. Not that hard is it?

Sorry. Could you point out where in the atheist bible it says kill the non-non-believers?

Here, take my copy of it:

























God does not exist.

Orion

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because they said 'God told me to kill'

I rest my 2,090,000 cases.

They're still at it - it's gone up to 2,150,000 now

philologos

Macros42 wrote: »

Do as I say not as I do? So you're saying god's a hypocrite. Cool

No I amn't. There were conditions that mankind were to follow, and there were conditions that God agreed to in the Old Covenant. If you follow my laws you will remain in the land of Israel and I will bless your descendants to thousands of generations. If you do not follow my laws I will cast you into other nations, I will have foreign armies invade you and take you into captivity until there is repentance. This is what happened two times:
1) Assyrian invasion circa 750BC.
2) Babylonian invasion circa 570BC.

God wasn't in violation of His own laws at all. Infact by punishing for transgression God was holding up to the terms of the Old Covenant. He offers us his mercy if we are willing to hold His laws in our hearts.

Likewise in the New Covenant.

God gave us the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, only if we are willing to repent of our sins and to start afresh with His guidance. If not, He will punish those who reject Him.

In both cases God is holding to his side of the deal. God is not subject to the terms that He has placed on humans, He has kept to His side of the deal. However continually humans have failed Him to this very day.

If you actually read the Torah and the New Testament you would have got this by now.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because when someone actively kills someone in the name of God, it is easy to tell why they are doing it.

Why?

Because they said 'God told me to kill'

I rest my 2,090,000 cases.

Doesn't mean that is the correct position as in Christianity though. When a leader organises the purging of religion in a nation how do you think they normally justify it? Just curious.

All I'm asking you to do is stop being so stubborn and accept that your reasoning is highly flawed. Just because people have killed in the name of God doesn't mean that it is true Christianity. Infact it couldn't be.

Orion

Jakkass wrote: »

He offers us his mercy if we are willing to hold His laws in our hearts.

If not, He will punish those who reject Him.

Sorry I misunderstood. So it's if we worship him he won't kill/torture us but if we reject his very existence we're fair game. Now I get it.

He must have pretty low self-esteem to insist on that though.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you actually read the Torah and the New Testament you would have got this by now.

I have. I don't debate in ignorance. I like to know the people who want to kill/torture me so I can understand them better.

philologos

Macros42 wrote: »

Sorry I misunderstood. So it's if we worship him he won't kill/torture us but if we reject his very existence we're fair game. Now I get it.

It's rather simple. If you don't follow by God's commandments He has every right to punish anyone if He has authority over humanity. Even more so than the police have the right to punish you should you be arrested and charged with a crime.

Anyhow. It's probably best if you have questions about divine punishment to ask it in the Christianity forum rather than here. More people to deal with your questions than little old me.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

All I'm asking you to do is stop being so stubborn and accept that your reasoning is highly flawed.

Oh, how... reasonable of you. Is this you playing victim again? I'm unimpressed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because people have killed in the name of God doesn't mean that it is true Christianity. Infact it couldn't be.

Of course not. No one could read the OT and get the idea that unbelivers should be killed.

:rolleyes:

When a leader organises the purging of religion in a nation how do you think they normally justify it? Just curious.

Religion posed a threat to Nazism and Stalinism, for both required a form of hero-worship in which God was a clear rival. Even if Stalin believed in God, he still would needed to have pursued his course of action, to ensure the success of his new communist (anti-royalist = anti-religion) society.

This should be obvious to anyone who even badly reads history...

Flamed Diving

Killing is against Christian belief, people...













Erm, which one?

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

If you believe you are good it doesn't necessarily follow that you are good.

What the hell does that mean? I think I'm a good person, but you say that I might not actually be good? Says who?!! What do I have to do to be good?

I'm following the New Testament understanding of the Torah which is written clearly.

Is there anything you disagree with in the New Testament? Any sort of law, practice, custom or moral? Plus I don't think it's written clearly now is it? There's a lot of metaphor in there. I was personally told by Fanny Cradock that the only way to figure out what's what is to:

You determine this by going back to the original authors and seeing what was their understanding and intent. I'll agree that there isn't always consensus, but such is life.http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60101689&postcount=28

How the McJaysus can you say that it's written clearly?

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus died for my sins, I was baptised into his death (Romans 6:3), Jesus has been ressurrected. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17). If I have been forgiven my sins, I am also to forgive the sins of others.

Yes formerly the penalty of sin was death (Romans 6, Romans 1), however due to the role of Jesus Christ there is an option to accept His death as atonement for yours so that you will not be punished come the Day of Judgement.

If this is the sort of crap you're going to be replying with, I give up. I'm going back to my cave for a while.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think the purpose in the mind of Stalin for persecuting people of religious faith was? State atheism clearly.

No it is not clearly state atheism , well at least not to anyone that is familiar with former USSR , Stalin’s motives where to create state worship . He was in essence redirecting the religious and royal family worship towards the state which he controlled .

As for Hitler his atheism has been greatly exaggerated all one has to do is listen to his speeches where he thanks “his lord and saviour Jesus Christ”

Nether Stalin or Hitler killed any one in the Name of Atheism . However you will find many accounts of people committing mass murder in the name of Christianity and many other religions

Jakkass wrote: »

However, just because Pope Urban II sanctioned it doesn't mean that it is advocated by Jesus Christ, .

Correct however we know that jesus would of advocated it because in several places of the new testament he endorsed the old testament law and instructed it be fallowed in it’s entirety


Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

It's rather simple. If you don't follow by God's commandments He has every right to punish anyone if He has authority over humanity. Even more so than the police have the right to punish you should you be arrested and charged with a crime.

That's one of the most horrible propositions I've ever heard and I'm glad I have nothing to do with that god. I happily reject him.

philologos

crotalus667 wrote: »

No it is not clearly state atheism , well at least not to anyone that is familiar with former USSR , Stalin’s motives where to create state worship . He was in essence redirecting the religious and royal family worship towards the state which he controlled .

I can give you many reasons for the Crusades that aren't religiously motivated that are backed up by historical sources too. All the purpose of that example was to accept:
1) My example is just as flawed as yours is.
2) As such if you employ your example, as a rhetorical device, I will employ my example with the same fallacious reasoning to show how flawed your example is.

crotalus667 wrote: »

As for Hitler his atheism has been greatly exaggerated all one has to do is listen to his speeches where he thanks “his lord and saviour Jesus Christ”

Yes to manipulate the crowd. Hitler had a nice public persona, but in Nazi documents he wanted to annihiliate Christianity, it was too soft. He even admitted that Christianity was too fluffy in comparison to the religion of the Mohammadans.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nether Stalin or Hitler killed any one in the Name of Atheism . However you will find many accounts of people committing mass murder in the name of Christianity and many other religions

This is very arguable.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Correct however we know that jesus would of advocated it because in several places of the new testament he endorsed the old testament law and instructed it be fallowed in it’s entirety

No we have no evidence to suggest this at all.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Yes this was in the Old Covenant. In Christianity we are to offer salvation not condemnation, as Jesus said "I have come not to condemn but to save".

If I am saved by Jesus' grace and I have accepted His death and resurrection as my own. I should offer this same grace to others. This is what the New Testament says. If you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven by the Father, you will no longer be in Christ's death and indeed you are not deserving of it.

In Torah law if you denied God, and if you rejected His commandments you were liable to death. That was the penalty for your sin. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins in modern Christianity, as such this understanding has been fulfilled. As Jesus said He would fulfil the Torah.

Also, this is a judicial law. The judicial law of Israel is not binding on us any more for the following reasons:

1) The Torah law was ruled by Sanhedrin priests (or the Jewish court). Jesus is the only High Priest in Christianity (see book of Hebrews). Hence His judgement on the Torah is the one we follow. His judgement is grace.

2) Torah Israel no longer exists. Israel is a secular state.

3) We are bound under the laws of our own respective nations. God has given us this authority for a reason (Romans 13:1).

Hence the judicial law has been fulfilled. The sins are still sins. The penalty has been paid by Christ however. If people do not accept His offer, these sins will be punishable in hell.

Key difference between Judaism and Christianity. I think sometimes its a shame we don't have a Jewish forum.

Goduznt Xzst

I doubt we'll hear from the OP again, although I suspect he's probably lurking in this thread.

However I will say this to the OP, people fear what they don't understand, so the fact you feel threatened by Atheism is appropriate.

partyguinness

I am more worried about the threat of religion and see it as the single greatest threat to world peace and prosperity.

Flamed Diving

partyguinness wrote: »

I am more worried about the threat of religion and see it as the single greatest threat to world peace and prosperity.

*Cue religious moron saying that atheism is a religion too*

partyguinness

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*Cue religious moron saying that atheism is a religion too*

I hope you are not referring to me as a religious moron...:mad:

philologos

I'd argue religion has brought more people together than it has driven apart. Infact if you look to English history, Christianity brought many conflicting tribes together to form the English.

I'd say you are right if you are saying that distortionists are a threat to world peace. I'd agree there. However, I do think that religion has more to bring to the table than not.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I doubt we'll hear from the OP again, although I suspect he's probably lurking in this thread.

He hasn't logged on since posting the thread. Will be in for a surprise though if he does come back!

partyguinness wrote: »

I hope you are not referring to me as a religious moron...:mad:

Eh, hardly, since you're more worried about "threat of religion".

Besides, FD isn't going to refer to anyone as a religious moron. *Ahem*.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes this was in the Old Covenant. In Christianity we are to offer salvation not condemnation, as Jesus said "I have come not to condemn but to save".

If I am saved by Jesus' grace and I have accepted His death and resurrection as my own. I should offer this same grace to others. This is what the New Testament says. If you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven by the Father, you will no longer be in Christ's death and indeed you are not deserving of it.

In Torah law if you denied God, and if you rejected His commandments you were liable to death. That was the penalty for your sin. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins in modern Christianity, as such this understanding has been fulfilled. As Jesus said He would fulfil the Torah.

Also, this is a judicial law. The judicial law of Israel is not binding on us any more for the following reasons:

1) The Torah law was ruled by Sanhedrin priests (or the Jewish court). Jesus is the only High Priest in Christianity (see book of Hebrews). Hence His judgement on the Torah is the one we follow. His judgement is grace.

2) Torah Israel no longer exists. Israel is a secular state.

3) We are bound under the laws of our own respective nations. God has given us this authority for a reason (Romans 13:1).

Hence the judicial law has been fulfilled. The sins are still sins. The penalty has been paid by Christ however. If people do not accept His offer, these sins will be punishable in hell.

Key difference between Judaism and Christianity. I think sometimes its a shame we don't have a Jewish forum.

What I find myself wondering is how an eternal being that exists outside time can change so much in such a short time. In fact how can he change at all if he's outside time?

And how can his message change at all if he's omnipotent? How can a perfect message become more perfect? How is that that a perfect being didn't get it right first time?

Things like newspapers often have to print retractions and corrections but I'd expect more of god

Undergod

smidgy wrote: »

My personal experience is that a person that does not believe in God (Jesus) will immediately assume that an unborn child is not alive. They will act on this and proceed with an abortion. Without any research into abortion they will derive their moral code to suit their circumstances.

Or, they could research it, and decide that they don't want to abort. You know, research and base your opinions on the things you observe.

What would your hypothetical Christian's research be? Check if it gets him sent to hell, and base his actions on that?

And all other religions that don't believe in God (Jesus) support abortion?

I am an atheist and I am against abortion. So your personal experience is fallible.

partyguinness

I am an atheist and I am also against abortion.

Sam Vimes

Me too. So that's four atheists on this thread alone who are against abortion. Myth busted!

pts

he he, sorry couldn't help myself. I agree with the posters who suspect OP won't be back for a while (if ever).

Undergod

Informative post, pts.

Sam Vimes

musician wrote: »

Without God perhaps:-

- thousands might still be working in two tall buildings in New York

Precisely.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What I find myself wondering is how an eternal being that exists outside time can change so much in such a short time. In fact how can he change at all if he's outside time?

And how can his message change at all if he's omnipotent? How can a perfect message become more perfect? How is that that a perfect being didn't get it right first time?

Things like newspapers often have to print retractions and corrections but I'd expect more of god

God didn't change. The New Covenant is different from the Old one like Jeremiah prophesied it would be (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

God had a different covenant relationship with the Jews in the Old Covenant than he had with the Jews and Gentiles who believed in Jesus Christ in the New Covenant. Quite a bit is shared between them but they are different. It's not that God changed, it's that we are under a different covenant.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

God didn't change. The New Covenant is different from the Old one like Jeremiah prophesied it would be (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

God had a different covenant relationship with the Jews in the Old Covenant than he had with the Jews and Gentiles who believed in Jesus Christ in the New Covenant. Quite a bit is shared between them but they are different. It's not that God changed, it's that we are under a different covenant.

So why does god have one version of morality for one group and a different one for another? And are they both perfect?

TheInquisitor

Jakkass wrote: »

If you believe you are good it doesn't necessarily follow that you are good.

Same can be said about christians jakkass, just because you believe in god etc doesn't make you good. If that was the case there would be no christians in jail. Just because i don't believe in god doesn't make me a bad person. I see god as a way out for lots of people. They can go to confession and absolve themselves of any crimes, i live to a higher standing than that, anything i do i have to live with for life.

Undergod

TheInquisitor wrote: »

If that was the case there would be no christians in jail

Though you have to assume many things, like that the prevailing society is good too.

Sam Vimes

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Same can be said about christians jakkass, just because you believe in god etc doesn't make you good. If that was the case there would be no christians in jail. Just because i don't believe in god doesn't make me a bad person. I see god as a way out for lots of people. They can go to confession and absolve themselves of any crimes, i live to a higher standing than that, anything i do i have to live with for life.

This is true. Fred Phelps thinks he's doing God's work and that his way is the only righteous one. Who's to say he's wrong?

pts

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

However I will say this to the OP, people fear what they don't understand, so the fact you feel threatened by Atheism is appropriate.

Reminded me of a quote by Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi wrote:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Flamed Diving

partyguinness wrote: »

I hope you are not referring to me as a religious moron...:mad:

No, not at all!

Dades wrote: »

Besides, FD isn't going to refer to anyone as a religious moron. *Ahem*.

Just to label someone as religious should suffice.

ScumLord

Undergod wrote: »

Though you have to assume many things, like that the prevailing society is good too.

Many armies have prayed to God before war throughout history. Being Christian they probably had fairly similar society's and fought over land and resources. Who's good there?

bnt

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, not at all!


Just to label someone as religious should suffice.

Nah, that's not nice. It might not be the person's fault that they're religious. It's polite practice to talk "person first" when someone has a disability, so you don't say "religious person", you say "person with religion".

(Yes, I regard a strong belief in any religion as I do a disability: it impairs one's ability to see the world as it is, and can be the result of a trauma (such as childhood indoctrination), not something for which the person can be blamed. The "good news" is that it's often possible to overcome a disability and live a successful, fulfilling life.)

CerebralCortex

bnt wrote: »

....The "good news" is that it's often possible to overcome a disability and live a successful, fulfilling life.)

Remember though that the meme and the host can have a symbiotic relationship where its mutually beneficial.

ChocolateSauce

I'm not going to rebut, as enough has already been said, but I will say that if opponents of secularism and atheism view us as a real threat, we're finally getting somewhere.

OP (if ye ever return), don't you think we should at least try the secular model for a generation or two? The religious one has been hogging the stage for far too long.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

I can give you many reasons for the Crusades that aren't religiously motivated that are backed up by historical sources too.

Firstly the predominant reason for the crusades was religion hence why the English crown was bankrupted with nothing to show for it , secondly if you think the crusades are the only time that religion caused mass slaughter you are not very informed about history

Jakkass wrote: »

All the purpose of that example was to accept:
1) My example is just as flawed as yours is.

There is nothing flawed in my example , this has been pointed out to you numerous times my a number of people so if you can not understand it I will not waste my time explaining it again

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes to manipulate the crowd. .

So he used religion to control and murder people ,

Jakkass wrote: »

This is very arguable..

No it's fact ,

Jakkass wrote: »

No we have no evidence to suggest this at all...

Well for that statement to be true you must submit to the fact that the New testament is utter hogwash

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue religion has brought more people together than it has driven apart. Infact if you look to English history, Christianity brought many conflicting tribes together to form the English.

Learn some history and you will under stand why that statement is wrong:rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue religion has brought more people together than it has driven apart. Infact if you look to English history, Christianity brought many conflicting tribes together to form the English...

Are you kidding me are you aware at all of the legacy of the British Empire? Before you say it cultural genocide and rape of other's sovereignty through some misguided idea that they were spreading civilisation is not something good.

philologos

I'm not talking about the British Empire. I'm talking about the period from 500 - 1000AD in England with the Angles and the Saxons and the Celtic tribes coming together as the "English" due to the Christianisation of the country by both Rome and the Celtic Christians. Channel 4 in their "Christianity: A History" series did an episode on it.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not talking about the British Empire.

I'm aware of that but one thing led to another.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm talking about the period from 500 - 1000AD in England with the Angles and the Saxons and the Celtic tribes coming together as the "English" due to the Christianisation of the country by both Rome and the Celtic Christians. Channel 4 in their "Christianity: A History" series did an episode on it.

I saw the ending of one part of it involving a British Catholic (Anne Widdecomb or something) it was quite good.

philologos

Anne Widdecombe was doing the episode on the Reformation. Robert Beckford did the episode on the Christianisation of Britain.

Undergod

ScumLord wrote: »

Many armies have prayed to God before war throughout history. Being Christian they probably had fairly similar society's and fought over land and resources. Who's good there?

? That has precisely zero to do with my post.

TheInquisitor

Does anyone else think jackass or sorry jakkass is very selective in his responses any one that has a decent agrument he refuses to answer,

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60243537#post60243537

philologos

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

dlofnep

To the OP - I'm an atheist and I oppose abortion. Any moral values that you can find in religion, can be found outside of it. Live your life as best you can, and hope that everyone else does the same.

Tigger

smidgy wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I am a Christian and feel threatened by an atheistic society. The reason for this is that I see atheism as destructive force since it enforces the belief that there is no eternal responsibility for ones actions. Since an atheist is only binded by his own moral code there is too much responsibility placed on the individual to create a code which is actually moral. I personally wouldn’t trust any individual from coming up with their own moral code because more often than not they will design it to suit themselves. If this ideology is to permeate society as a whole and people feel that they are only answerable to the law (and not the 'truth' or God) then it creates a very dangerous society.
S.

Hi op

i feel threatened by people with an imaginary friend who are paranoid that because i don't believe in thier imaginary friend i will kill their unborn children.

i am worried that the leaders of this country will make it illegal to even suggest that this imaginary person is a little bit of an odd idea all things considered and that i could be forced to toe a line where what i believe is boaderline psychosis (the insistance that i be nice to their all powerfull imaginary friend who they have never met and who they only know about because they were told about it) is legislated as the norm.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

In all fairness Jakkass, you're going to have to stop using that excuse at some stage. If you were simply not getting around to them then random posts would not be responded to but there is a definite pattern, ie it's always the difficult points that get skipped over

Besides which, even if you are just not getting around to them, randomly stopping responding to people in the middle of a thread and continuing to respond to other people is pretty rude

I'm not trying to start a fight here but at some stage you will have to acknowledge this issue

philologos

Sam Vimes: I can't help the fact that I won't personally be able to get around to comment on every persons post until you encourage other Christians to post in here again. It's really as simple as that. I don't want to start an argument either.

mewso

To be fair asking Jakkass to address a particular question you would like him to answer rather than accusing him of avoiding them might work better.

mewso

Jakkass wrote: »

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

Pity that. I thought the crowd in here were pretty reasonable in general.