"no, I'm actually an athiest"

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

Why do christians keep on ignoring what Jesus said?

Metaphor

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Can you please tell me why and what you try and argue here, then?
Because I'm honestly, sincerely confused.

You're suggesting I can't be part of the church because of what I do or don't believe, or rather that I should read up on it more to decide where I stand.

I already had this kind of argument on another thread and I caused a lot of trouble I think so I don't want to do that here.

Pookah

Wow, kinda missed this thread over the weekend.

Who's winning?

Shenshen

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I know religion is all about telling you you're defective and need to pay for a good repair. But what did the baby do wrong?

I've heard two lines of argument :

Firstly, it's still carrying the curse god put on Adam and Eve when he threw tham out of paradise. Apparently, each and every human being does, and can't possibly be allowed into heaven without that stain being removed.
The church used to not even allow unbaptised babies to be buries in consecrated ground, because that was only for people with a fair chance of getting into heaven, which those little ones didn't have.

The other interpretation, albeit more dubious one, is that children are born because their parents had sex. So their guilt is having had their parents fornicating to produce them.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

Jesus preached poverty and not displaying one's religious alignment in public..

Missed the point again, no suprise there then.

robindch wrote: »

Why do christians keep on ignoring what Jesus said?

I'd suggest the Godfather Part III to get a glimpse into what was meant.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No you made a comment on that fact that I disagree with a biblical teaching. I'm not getting into all that what I do and don't believe stuff again.

This is a thread about atheism! What you do or don't believe is a major part of it.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You're suggesting I can't be part of the church because of what I do or don't believe, or rather that I should read up on it more to decide where I stand.

I already had this kind of argument on another thread and I caused a lot of trouble I think so I don't want to do that here.

I'm not suggesting that. You can consider yourself part of whatever you feel like.


What I am suggesting though is that you might reconsider arguing the church's position until you know what its position actually IS.

Bookworm85

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't think he's calling your parents deluded crazies or that they are bad people, or anything of the sort. He's just saying he believes that on the particular point of religion they happen to be wrong, ( being wrong doesn't make you a lesser person) he's not saying that they aren't competent people in generel in life and I don't know where you got the idea that he thinks they are mentally unstable.

Indeed he did Scanlas, I cant recall if it was in 'The Root Of All Evil' or in 'Enemies of Reason'. He likened religious beliefs to mental instability and delusion. That is just downright preposterous. I'm trying to find a link with a you tube vid

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

This is a thread about atheism!

No it's not, it's about a particular sub-set type of atheist.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that. You can consider yourself part of whatever you feel like.


What I am suggesting though is that you might reconsider arguing the church's position until you know what its position actually IS.

I won't reconsider anything, I know the Church's postion and I know my own. And it was my own I was arguing.

Marcus.Aurelius

Shenshen wrote: »

I've heard two lines of argument :

Firstly, it's still carrying the curse god put on Adam and Eve when he threw tham out of paradise. Apparently, each and every human being does, and can't possibly be allowed into heaven without that stain being removed.
The church used to not even allow unbaptised babies to be buries in consecrated ground, because that was only for people with a fair chance of getting into heaven, which those little ones didn't have.

The other interpretation, albeit more dubious one, is that children are born because their parents had sex. So their guilt is having had their parents fornicating to produce them.

But either of those things are just life-destroying drivel, you're always defective, the repairs are ongoing, you miserable, pitiful sinner. Don't you think God seems particularly angry about the milk he himself spilt?

strobe

Pookah wrote: »

Wow, kinda missed this thread over the weekend.

Who's winning?

The Hindus...... I know, I was surprised too.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I won't reconsider anything, I know the Church's postion and I know my own. And it was my own I was arguing.

I would suggest you make the more clear, then. Because your position is about as far removed from the church's as mine is. So to make an incorrect statement about a sacrament would confuse.

Galvasean

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not naive no but thanks for asking :rolleyes:

That's just how I see a baptisim.

Perhaps naive was the wrong word, but you certainly show an ignorance of Catholic traditions. While your description was fairly accurate in a cultural sense, it was miles off in relation to how the Catholic Church view baptism (which is what teh question was about).

Galvasean

Pookah wrote: »

Wow, kinda missed this thread over the weekend.

Who's winning?

Personally, I believe my side is winning

Shenshen

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

But either of those things are just life-destroying drivel, you're always defective, the repairs are ongoing, you miserable, pitiful sinner. Don't you think God seems particularly angry about the milk he himself spilt?

I do... while I think the chances of him existing are slim indeed, I also think that if he does exist, and what the bible says about him happens to be true, he is not a deity I could ever bring myself to worship.

AudreyHepburn

Galvasean wrote: »

Perhaps naive was the wrong word, but you certainly show an ignorance of Catholic traditions. While your description was fairly accurate in a cultural sense, it was miles off in relation to how the Catholic Church view baptism (which is what teh question was about).

I know but I am not trying to argue the Church's postition, only my own and I though that's what you were asking.

If that makes me ignorant so be it.

Shenshen

strobe wrote: »

The Hindus...... I know, I was surprised too.

Marcus.Aurelius

Shenshen wrote: »

I do... while I think the chances of him existing are slim indeed, I also think that if he does exist, and what the bible says about him happens to be true, he is not a deity I could ever bring myself to worship.

Ah, I feel much the same.

Galvasean wrote: »

Personally, I believe my side is winning

I think that's been true since the OP's opening salvo.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

Missed the point again, no suprise there then.

How do you know, since you didn't clearly read my post :rolleyes:

Prinz, taking things on faith might work for religion, but for everything else -- there's evidence out there

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

No it's not, it's about a particular sub-set type of atheist.

Well draw a venn diagram - it is still about atheism

Galvasean

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know but I am not trying to argue the Church's postition, only my own and I though that's what you were asking.

If that makes me ignorant so be it.

Nothing wrong with being ignorant of all those Catholic traditions TBH. :pac:

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

You didn't use it effectively however, and if I needed help in understanding forms of argumentation, I'd go look for it.

I'll tell you what, fill out a list of everything that you know and email it to me so that I can cross reference it lest I make the awful mistake of thinking you might not know something.

But besides that, the link was given to back up my point, not just in case you hadn't heard of it.

And how did I not use it effectively exactly? I think I was very effective in showing that you do the very same as Dawkins does when you don't approve of the beliefs being taught.

prinz wrote: »

You realise this is something which would occur after death yeah? Not to get too much into explaining the whole thing, but contrary to popular opinion you don't die and get a 'Christians Only' golden escalator to the pearly gates in Christianity.

Well firstly, that is quite a popular opinion among christians and secondly, while many christians don't believe that being a christian is enough in itself to go to heaven, they do believe that it is a minimum requirement; a bad christian will go to hell but a non-christian will go to hell regardless of how well they live their lives.

But you are right to say that not all christians believe that either. A lot of them lie to themselves and pretend that the bible is not absolutely unequivocal in stating that believing in the resurrection of Jesus is a requirement for salvation.

Scanlas The 2nd

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Indeed he did Scanlas, I cant recall if it was in 'The Root Of All Evil' or in 'Enemies of Reason'. He likened religious beliefs to mental instability and delusion. That is just downright preposterous. I'm trying to find a link with a you tube vid

Well if he did call your parents crazies in general in life, I disagree with him. I agree about the delusion part though. I do think your parents are deluded on the topic of religion.

Bruthal

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Deep, deep thinker! I'd have thought that your millions and millions of years of evolution would have sorted everything out, no need for any medicine.

conor108`s post was spot on, your reply only confirms your complete ignorance to the evolution facts. Either real ignorance or deliberate denial.

MingulayJohnny

Just a few questions for the atheists & adherents of evolution on the thread , ( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma )

1) For the adherents of macro evolution theory who are not scientifically knowledgable , do you simply believe in the theory based on what you have read and use a 'Common sense' approach?.

2) If you cannot verify the theory based on your own scientific understanding is it not akin to a religious belief?. Would you be willing to even entertain the idea that some day down the line there may be new evidence or discoveries that shatter the current widely accepted paradigm?.

3) Would athesits who have actual deep contempt for people who have spiritual beliefs consider themselves to be truly open minded?.

4) What would you think of the concept of not believing in anything as in the piece from the web link.

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

It's just that being a lay person scientifically all I have to go on in relation to evolution theory is to what I can read for and against online and in books etc. Micro evolution seems apparent to me , but I've read some pretty convincing counter arguments to macro evolution and I don't mean from religious fanatics. Is the theory of macro evolution really that rock solid that it cannot be challenged?. ( I'm not looking for an argument btw I argue for about half of my day on a phone so I don't want to engage in the muck slinging and aggro that a lot of internet forums descend into ).

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Well draw a venn diagram - it is still about atheism

....no, it really isn't. That's not how it started, and that's not how it should be now.

There are those posters who are just itching to turn it into a atheist versus believer thread, unfortunately.:(

PeterIanStaker

efb wrote: »

No I'm someone that life was torn apart by those saying the (homosexual) feelings I had were evil, while they were abusing, and covering up the abuse of, young children.

Nazi boy soldier Joe Ratzinger and his brainwashed flock can rot in their hell.

My remains will burn when they have taken anything of any use and that will be it.

Am I trying to be cool? No, I'm learning that there is nothing wrong with me, whatever they say.

Well said that man. Would thank ya three times if it allowed me.

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

contrary to popular opinion you don't die and get a 'Christians Only' golden escalator to the pearly gates in Christianity.

Erm, to ask the obvious question:

How do you know?

Bookworm85

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well if he did call your parents crazies in general in life, I disagree with him. I agree about the delusion part though. I do think your parents are deluded on the topic of religion.

Oh I agree too, but that delusion is not harming them or anyone else in any way.They are getting on in their years, and if the idea of heaven or whatever is comforting or inspiring to them then let them have their delusion. But to label people like my parents, both of whom are intelligent, articulate individuals is a step too far in my opinion.

Again, I do not like the idea that theists see this man as the spokesperson for atheists. He does not represent me, and for him to say such things is damaging to atheists everywhere.