The Threat of Atheism

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.