Jump to content


Photo

Why Are You Religous/agnostic/atheist?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2009 - 08:08 AM

Actually Ron my favourite quote would be John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Ok, sure Arch, not a problem. But one must recognize as well, that the passage you are referring to is from the last supper where Jesus is explaining His betrayer (and betrayal), and that He will be tortured and crucified (as the final sacrifice) and “put on display” for the sins of man.

We cannot separate any part of the message to meet our own needs. And, if Jesus was just fooling his disciples in this, then He was the greater fool and lunatic, and therefore not worthy of emulation.

#62 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 May 2009 - 09:24 AM

Actually Ron my favourite quote would be John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

In order for those words to be good, their source must also be good. You couldn't easily have chosen a worse example upon which to build your case.

Those words, coming from a lying nutjob, wouldn't mean very much. "As I have loved you" sets a standard. If it is a standard of deception, it's not worth beans. It'd almost be saying "trick one another as I have tricked you", if that were the case.

I was trying to quit the thread for a while, but it looks like I failed. Oh well...

#63 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 May 2009 - 04:11 PM

We cannot separate any part of the message to meet our own needs. And, if Jesus was just fooling his disciples in this, then He was the greater fool and lunatic, and therefore not worthy of emulation.

View Post


I don't believe I am separating the message Ron. Christ preached love and forgiveness. If you remove God from the equation then Christ preached....love and forgiveness.

I think that if even the most foolish person says something wise it doesn't change the fact that what they said was wise. People can feel free to disagree with this, but I don't have an issue with it.

Regards,

Arch.

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2009 - 07:44 PM

I think that if even the most foolish person says something wise it doesn't change the fact that what they said was wise. People can feel free to disagree with this, but I don't have an issue with it.

View Post


Yeah, I suppose if Ted Kaczynski said “no, don’t cut the red wire!” or a p*dophile preached on the rightness of love to his victims, then you’d have a point.

#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2009 - 07:47 PM

In order for those words to be good, their source must also be good. You couldn't easily have chosen a worse example upon which to build your case.

Those words, coming from a lying nutjob, wouldn't mean very much. "As I have loved you" sets a standard. If it is a standard of deception, it's not worth beans. It'd almost be saying "trick one another as I have tricked you", if that were the case.

I was trying to quit the thread for a while, but it looks like I failed. Oh well...

View Post


What are you talking about CTD!!! Context has no meaning! Just cherry-pick your favorite verses, and pretend all that other stuff means nothing.

#66 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 May 2009 - 08:54 PM

What are you talking about CTD!!! Context has no meaning! Just cherry-pick your favorite verses, and pretend all that other stuff means nothing.

View Post

Well, I don't really have a favorite verse. Or if I do, it changes too frequently to keep score. But if I were to cherry pick just now, this one comes to mind

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


At times it seems astonishing. It's certainly counter-intuitive (I hope this doesn't mean I'm part evolutionist). But it's so true.

#67 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 May 2009 - 02:15 AM

Yeah, I suppose if Ted Kaczynski said “no, don’t cut the red wire!” or a P*dophile preached on the rightness of love to his victims, then you’d have a point.

View Post


Possibly a little more black and white than I was going for, but accurate.

#68 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 May 2009 - 04:50 AM

Possibly a little more black and white than I was going for, but accurate.

View Post

Are you starting to realize the emptiness of trying to make good the idea that Jesus was a good teacher but not who He claimed to be?

Either He is God or he was a certifiable loon who was killed, there is no compromise.




Can I switch up the topic a little and get your opinion on something, Arch? What about the other way but the similar problem...

I've had this shown to me several times to "prove" that Hitler was doing what he did because of his belief in god:

Posted Image

This is the belt buckle issued to German soldiers.

"Gott Mituns" means - "God With Us"

When this is shown to me it's always presented in a smug, matter-of-fact way, to show me that gawd was the real motivation for Hitler's Nazi Germany... :o

Do you think actions can speak louder than words? Also, should we stop at a piece of evidence like this with some sort of confusion when all the other ideas show clearly that Hitler was working out of a set of semi-mystical but mostly naturalistic ideals, based in Darwinian Evolution and Nihilism? Is it okay to state plainly that Hitler either had his own god or was paying lip service to one out of convenience?

In fact, look at the opening statements of the web site that I retrieved that photo from and tell us whether you think its author is really on to something important, confused or deceptive:

http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

#69 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2009 - 12:01 PM

Well, I don't really have a favorite verse. Or if I do, it changes too frequently to keep score. But if I were to cherry pick just now, this one comes to mind

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


At times it seems astonishing. It's certainly counter-intuitive (I hope this doesn't mean I'm part evolutionist). But it's so true.

View Post


At times when I read some of the cherry picked posts here I can't help but think about John 11:35 :P

#70 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:06 PM

Are you starting to realize the emptiness of trying to make good the idea that Jesus was a good teacher but not who He claimed to be?

Either He is God or he was a certifiable loon who was killed, there is no compromise.

View Post


As much as I hate to disappoint you Adam, no I don't think it is empty. You can feel free to see the world in absolutes, but I see grays everywhere I look.

Can I switch up the topic a little and get your opinion on something, Arch?

View Post


I was considering putting my own switch-aroo on this topic but let's go down this path first.

Evidence seems to suggest Hitler had a belief in God. Regardless of whether his views were accurate or not it led him to a bad place.

Most people here have a belief in God, and as far as I can tell it has enriched their lives.

This serves to enhance what I already believe. There is no good or bad in the world, only perspective.

I don't think it matters whether Hitler was atheist or religious. He still did horrible, unforgivable things. The only thing this 'proves' is that even the best causes can be perverted.

As to the author intending "to warn against the dangers of mixing religion with government" (I assume this is what you wanted me to look at?) I agree with them. In this day and age a government can have any number of religions present in their people. To try and govern from the perspective of one of these religions seems foolish. Therefore a separation of the two seems necessary.

I hope I've addressed your questions Adam, I admit I wasn't 100% sure where you were going.

Regards,

Arch.

#71 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:17 PM

I hope I've addressed your questions Adam, I admit I wasn't 100% sure where you were going.

View Post

I would say you totally missed my points and addressed things that I wasn't talking about. :blink:

Maybe we'll try again later...

#72 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 June 2009 - 04:32 AM

I would say you totally missed my points and addressed things that I wasn't talking about. :blink:

Maybe we'll try again later...

View Post


Oh bummer :( My bad, I have noticed I don't always follow your train of thought in other forums. I'm happy to try again if you are :D

Regards,

Arch.

#73 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 03 June 2009 - 07:38 AM

Arch,

My understanding of God's love that I see scattered throughout the Bible is...undescribable!!
Too often we think of it as just a little bit above human love, but the greek word many times in the New Testament means "super abundant", meaning that it blows away, by far, anything that we can imagine.
The Bible tells us that God sets His love upon us according to His purposes, His will and NOTHING can thwart those purposes!!
Now, God does love ALL people on this earth, in a certain way, but He has a very special love for His children.
God's love is not based on our actions, we don't sway God's love by saying or doing things, His love is constant from the "foundation of the world".
I did not include scripture here to support these claims, but most definitely would should you desire.
Religion, to me, is a thought process as such:
We can close the gap between a deity and mankind somehow; either a deity can be understood as less than completely sovereign and completely in control and perfect, AND/OR mankind is not really too far removed from that deity.
So, to close the gap, let us show this deity what we can do!!
We can pray hard, we can bow, chant, humble ourselves, recite things ad nauseum, we can injure ourselves, deny ourselves, fast, meditate, study sacred scripture etc. etc.
The God of the Bible tells us that we have no ability on our own to please Him in anyway because our hearts are tainted by sin.We need a new heart!!
We need to come to Him broken, bankrupt, humble, desperate and urgently to receive what ONLY he can provide.
I am not an expert on world religions, but I know that most, if not all, have the same message:
It's all up to you! find hidden wisdom, work harder, say certain magical words, find a "key to life" etc.

Chip

View Post

*
I really sense you have found the Lord [or been found of the Lord] after quite a tough time Chip, your posts seem seasoned with the kind of wisdom such experience afford. Indeed I have been blessed by the fellowship and wisdom of older christians on this forum, I know I've got alot to learn.

#74 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:06 AM

The argument from poor design is one reason I'm an athiest. I've questioned the quality of design in a couple of threads. Adam picked me up on it a while ago, and in the Why evolution is clear to me thread Ikester asked me:

Why is it designed badly?

View Post


Good question. I have no idea why, if it was designed, so much of the natural world appears designed badly.

The following are just a few observations that make deliberate design questionable:

Strawberry Naevus My daughter has one of these, luckily nowhere obvious and much smaller than the images in the link. A strawberry naevus is generally symptomless and disappears without treatment in due course.

Varicose veins seem like a strange and pointless design feature to introduce to 30% of all human adults

The human GULO gene, discussed at length in this very forum, but sadly with no coherent design explanation.

Irukanji jellyfish stings induce muscle cramps in the arms and legs, severe pain in the back and kidneys, and a burning sensation of the skin and face, headaches, nausea, restlessness, sweating, vomiting, high heart rate and blood pressure. Occasionally they are fatal.
The irukanji is almost invisible to us in the water. Most people who get stung never see the jellyfish. Some animals, wasps (which are also generally not lethal) for example, have very obvious colouring which says "keep clear". The absolute opposite is true of the irukanji. What a fiendish piece of design this is!

I could go on - the pandas' thumbs, the human appendix and so on are all mentioned in the wiki link above.

There seems to be no design explanation for this other than we are part of a fallen world, or God's whim, or some other such hand waving.

#75 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2009 - 10:28 PM

Hi Falcone, I was beginning to think this forum had dried up. Thanks for your input.

I must say those strawberry naevus photos look horrific. For something symptomless I'd be freaking out if I saw that on a baby.

Regards,

Arch.

#76 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 01 July 2009 - 09:53 AM

Hi guys and girls,

I'm new to these forums (been reading them for a couple of weeks and thought I'd finally sign up). I thought rather than just jumping straight into intense debate I'd take the time for a friendly converstation and get to know some of you first.

As I recently decided to move from agnostic to atheist, I'm interested in how other's have come to their beliefs. Several times I've read the religous people here claiming they have experienced God in their lives. I'm interested to know how exactly you have experienced him.

I would also be interested in hearing how other agnostic or atheists have come to their beliefs.

Here's to hoping we can just share out beliefs and not have to get into an intense debate over them.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

Hi Arch - perhaps this has been discussed already on one of the many pages to this thread but I wasn't able to find it.

I would first like to mention that agnosticism was never really meant to be a third option between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge while atheism and theism are statements about belief. One cannot be neither a theist nor an atheist - it makes no logical sense. It is as absurd as saying one is both an atheist and a theist. One either has belief in a god(s) or does not. If you are not sure then technically you are without belief and you are by default an atheist.

One can be both agnostic and a theist or an atheist. For example, and agnostic atheist is someone who is without belief in god(s) but is not absolute in the completeness of their knowledge. I fall under this category. An agnostic theist is someone who does believe in a god(s) but is not absolute in the completeness of their knowledge.

Someone who does not claim to be agnostic is saying that they are complete in their knowledge. So an atheist who does not claim agnosticism is saying that they believe there is no God. This is different than simply being without belief in God.

I have always been an atheist by default. I was born without belief and I have never experienced any thing or witnessed any evidence that would convince me to be with belief. My parents aren't really religious and if they are they have beliefs that they keep private so I was never influenced by them.

#77 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 July 2009 - 07:33 PM

Hi Arch - perhaps this has been discussed already on one of the many pages to this thread but I wasn't able to find it.

I would first like to mention that agnosticism was never really meant to be a third option between theism and atheism.  Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge while atheism and theism are statements about belief.  One cannot be neither a theist nor an atheist - it makes no logical sense.  It is as absurd as saying one is both an atheist and a theist.  One either has belief in a god(s) or does not.  If you are not sure then technically you are without belief and you are by default an atheist.

One can be both agnostic and a theist or an atheist.  For example, and agnostic atheist is someone who is without belief in god(s) but is not absolute in the completeness of their knowledge.  I fall under this category.  An agnostic theist is someone who does believe in a god(s) but is not absolute in the completeness of their knowledge. 

Someone who does not claim to be agnostic is saying that they are complete in their knowledge.  So an atheist who does not claim agnosticism is saying that they believe there is no God.  This is different than simply being without belief in God.

I have always been an atheist by default.  I was born without belief and I have never experienced any thing or witnessed any evidence that would convince me to be with belief.  My parents aren't really religious and if they are they have beliefs that they keep private so I was never influenced by them.

View Post


Wow Sphere, talk about doing your head in :P

I think I understand your point though. I have given up any belief in a God or Gods, however I know logically I can't prove they don't exist. So although my belief is atheist, my knowledge is agnostic.

Does that about sum it up?

Thanks for sharing :)

Regards,

Arch.

#78 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 01 July 2009 - 07:43 PM

Wow Sphere, talk about doing your head in :P

I think I understand your point though. I have given up any belief in a God or Gods, however I know logically I can't prove they don't exist. So although my belief is atheist, my knowledge is agnostic.

Does that about sum it up?

Thanks for sharing ;)

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



I'm not sure I know what "doing my head in" means? Is it some aussie phrase :) ?

#79 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 July 2009 - 07:49 PM

I'm not sure I know what "doing my head in" means?  Is it some aussie phrase  :P ?

View Post


Hmm, not sure. Wouldn't surprise me if it was though :)

Basically it means you confused me. Might have made more sense if I'd said "You really did my head in".

#80 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 01 July 2009 - 09:08 PM

Hmm, not sure. Wouldn't surprise me if it was though :)

Basically it means you confused me. Might have made more sense if I'd said "You really did my head in".

View Post



I confuse myself all of the time. :P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users