RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?
|
The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?
I think there's some truth to what you say, although as I said to Moff in another thread, I'm loathe to put words in someone's mouth.
I'd venture a guess that most of the theist posters in this thread don't feel threatened by the existence of happy atheists.
As for those that do feel threatened by atheism, well, you might as well ask for an explanation of how gay marriage threatens traditional marriage. You're likely not going to get a coherent (or at least rational) answer.
The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly?
I think it's something like this:
Imagine that there were a large number of people publishing bestselling nonfiction books about, and giving talks about how great it is, to date 14-year-olds. Nothing illegal -- everything is constent with age-of-consent laws in their district (Alabama? Wherever) and all that -- but still, ugh. And they're telling everyone that there's no need to restrict yourself to older people, and that countries and states with higher ages of consent are backwards and just plain dangerous.
Now, we all (hopefully) agree that the idea is morally repugnant. We're basing that on an assessment that includes relative life experience and ability to give informed consent, etc.
OK, now look at things from a theist's viewpoint. Their moral assessments are based on interpretation of that they believe to be the words of God. Based on those assessments, not giving glory to God is worse than molesting teenagers. Maybe it's legal in some places, but it's morally wrong and shouldn't be encouraged to spread, and the people promoting it are downright disguisting in their flagrant disregard of morals.
Until some sort of universally-agreed-upon meta-ethical construct can be made to bridge the gap between their moral judgment and ours, there is no hard way to convince anyone that the two scenarios outlined are not exactly equivalent to one another.
|
In my experience, it is more that athiests (in general, not universally), tend to be rather rude, closed minded, and/or dismissive of others when it comes to those topics. The most common thing I have experienced is this idea that "I am right because tere is no proof one way or the other", but "you are wrong and supid until you prove me wrong". Sort of a "reverse" discrimination double standard.
Add to the fact that many atheists act as poorly with thier "religion" as they accuse others of at their worst, (by that I mean typically blamming relgions for killing this and this many people, or being singularly responsible for multiple wars or atrosities), or an ireverence for other's beliefs or dearly held beliefs and ideas, that if any religious context where removed, would be viewed by nearly anyone as brutishly cruel, mean, and all out bad form, but is ok because it is bashing a religious view.
On the other hand, I have met a lot of atheists that do not behave this way, are very good people, sometime more charitable than people whose religion advocates such, and are not asses when it comes to religion/faith/personal philosophy. Many I would personally view as more agnostic than athiest, but there is as much derision in identifying a line between the two as say if atheism is or is not a religion itself.
Probably one of the biggest things though, is simply that when one person says one of the following: Christian, religion, atheist, agnostic, morality, moral philosophy, or many other related things, other understand it in a completely different way than what might have been interpretted. I am not bameless. When I hear/see atheist, my first reaction is to brace for hypocritical rudeness and lack of logicical discussion, if any. A lot of people have the same experience with other words/people. Christian, Catholic, or organized religion in general being the more numerous, I think.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Beckett et al:
You make a lot of sense. I guess I don't feel a need to paint all Christians, Atheists, insert group name here, with the same brush. Just because I've dealt with terrible, terrible people who happened to be Christian, I don't think Christianity made them terrible. And I've met those Atheists who treat their lack of belief as a religion. Yuck.
I guess it just makes me wonder how some of the people I see on here are in real life, because they're reflexively so very hostile to anyone asking any questions whatsoever regarding their beliefs. If you're this big a doof on Paizo.com, how are you in real life? Especially since by identifying yourself as a member of a certain religion or group, you're automatically becoming associated with that religion as a representative, right or wrongly.
For the record, I'm an agnostic. I can't prove or disprove the existence of any deity, so the only defensible position I can take personally is I don't know, and you don't either. To me, the existence or non-existence of a god/s wouldn't change the way I conduct my life in any way, so why should I worry? I mean, I guess you could argue Pascal's wager, but that's so ridiculous that it doesn't really warrant discussion here.
I'm going to drop this link here, because I don't think it's appropriate for the 'share your faith' thread, but it's one of the most eloquent and beautifully worded statements about secular 'faith' that I've ever read.
It's a piece the Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) did for NPR's 'This I Believe' series, about why he believes there is no God. Hit me like a brickbat the first time I heard it, and I keep coming back to it periodically and integrating bits and pieces of it into my own world view.
|
|
I guess it just makes me wonder how some of the people I see on here are in real life, because they're reflexively so very hostile to anyone asking any questions whatsoever regarding their beliefs.
I don't have a problem with people asking about what I believe, or why, or even wanting to compare/contrast or maybe even change my mind. But, again, (in my experience and not universal), a lot of atheists tend to view those that do practice a religion as oddities, somehow wrong that need to both explain why they act/believe something, or are treated like they are stupid/illogical/uneducated or in contrast with what "everyone else" or science has "proven". Basically, it is the way that they are not only irreverant towards what others do believe or hold dear, but also many times just disrespectfull and not mindfull of being so about different topics.
I mean, I guess you could argue Pascal's wager, but that's so ridiculous that it doesn't really warrant discussion here.
Why do you say that, and why not worth disussion? Honest question, not picking a fight.
I'm going to drop this link here, because I don't think it's appropriate for the 'share your faith' thread, but it's one of the most eloquent and beautifully worded statements about secular 'faith' that I've ever read.
While I can't really agree with a lot of what he says, interesting read.
|
I'm going to drop this link here, because I don't think it's appropriate for the 'share your faith' thread, but it's one of the most eloquent and beautifully worded statements about secular 'faith' that I've ever read.
It's a piece the Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) did for NPR's 'This I Believe' series, about why he believes there is no God. Hit me like a brickbat the first time I heard it, and I keep coming back to it periodically and integrating bits and pieces of it into my own world view.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I mean, I guess you could argue Pascal's wager, but that's so ridiculous that it doesn't really warrant discussion here.Why do you say that, and why not worth discussion? Honest question, not picking a fight.
No problem. Pascal's Wager assumes a certain premise: if there is no god and you bet that there is, and you're wrong, you've lost nothing. If you assume there is no god, and there is, you've lost eternity. EXCEPT Pascal assumes a. this god is the Christian god and b. this Christian god accepts people who are only playing the odds into heaven.
Problems: What if the God isn't the Christian God, but Thor or Pele or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You've lost either way. What if the God can see into your heart and sees that you're only hedging your bets? You lose. What if acting as if there is a god costs you time and effort in life that could be better spent in more fruitful pursuits, ie all that time in church/worship? You've lost. I'm sure there are other problems with it, but these cover enough of it to make it seem like a less than fair wager to me. I'd rather live my life by a moral code that stresses doing good works and leaving the world a generally better place than I found it. If there is some sort of deity, I hope that it respects the works I do, and if it doesn't, it's probably not any sort of being I'd want to spend an eternity with anyway. If there's no god, at least I made the world a better place and enjoyed my life as best I can without having to profess anything I don't really believe in anyway.
|
|
No I get what it is. I guess what man is that while it may not appeal to me, (and I assumed that A and B where what you mean), it might actually me an important concept or stepping stone to some one else. Or rather maybe some one else, who may have a different view or beter understanding of a religion might have a different insight into that rationale.
That's why I don't see how it isn't worth discussing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
No I get what it is. I guess what man is that while it may not appeal to me, (and I assumed that A and B where what you mean), it might actually me an important concept or stepping stone to some one else. Or rather maybe some one else, who may have a different view or beter understanding of a religion might have a different insight into that rationale.
That's why I don't see how it isn't worth discussing.
If it brings someone to faith, then I suppose it's a stepping stone. But I don't consider it any more valid a stepping stone than the Narnia novels. In fact, I think the Narnia novels are much more useful in their allegorical spirit.
But I don't consider it useful for the simple fact that the avoidance of punishment is a bad reason to do anything.
Updated to include CourtFool's and Jagyr's very sexy statistics.
1. Secular Humanism (90.55%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (87.73%)
3. Liberal Quakers (75.45%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (71.36%)
5. Nontheist (70.36%)
6. Neo-Pagan (66.09%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64.91%)
8. Taoism (49.09%)
9. New Age (49%)
10. Reform Judaism (48.36%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (46.45%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (43.27%)
13. Sikhism (38.27%)
14. Scientology (35.82%)
15. New Thought (35%)
16. Jainism (32.36%)
17. Baha'i Faith (32.18%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (31.27%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (29.36%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (28.09%)
21. Hinduism (28%)
22. Seventh Day Adventist (27.73%)
23. Roman Catholic (27.27%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (27.27%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (26.27%)
26. Islam (26.09%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (14.45%)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
He also did this oneI'm going to drop this link here, because I don't think it's appropriate for the 'share your faith' thread, but it's one of the most eloquent and beautifully worded statements about secular 'faith' that I've ever read.
It's a piece the Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) did for NPR's 'This I Believe' series, about why he believes there is no God. Hit me like a brickbat the first time I heard it, and I keep coming back to it periodically and integrating bits and pieces of it into my own world view.
That's a cool video. I wish I would encounter more people like that guy in the world. Of course, they may be out there, doing good things, and that's why we never hear about them. At least, I hope that's the reason I don't hear about them.
But I don't consider it useful for the simple fact that the avoidance of punishment is a bad reason to do anything.
It's an outstanding way to get people to commit incredible atrocities, though.
|
|
Sorry, let me explain it in a different way. I didn't mean that it is correct or "true", but that in order to see it as wrong, you have got add things to it, that may or may not have been the original intent. That also means that it may not be being use to illistrate the same thing as the original intent. Also, let me say that I don't actually disagree with you personally, but I do see it being more or less important to ohers, for different reasons, potentually.
I mean that you have to add that it may not be talking about the Jewish/Christain/Muslim God, but could be any god. Or that by believing, you are believing because you are playing the odds. These things might not be true, but if I where talking to someone about this of my faith, it would be a granted that we would be meaning specific things with this general diagram.
I just finished watching. Also a very good video. Interesting and something I can relate to, even if I don't agree with his views, :) which is sort of his point. Thanks for sharing.
He also did this oneI'm going to drop this link here, because I don't think it's appropriate for the 'share your faith' thread, but it's one of the most eloquent and beautifully worded statements about secular 'faith' that I've ever read.
It's a piece the Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) did for NPR's 'This I Believe' series, about why he believes there is no God. Hit me like a brickbat the first time I heard it, and I keep coming back to it periodically and integrating bits and pieces of it into my own world view.
Yep. Yet another reason he's one of my favorite famous people. :)
I rather strive to live up to his example of how to deal with differing religious beliefs. I'm not as definite about my own belief or lack thereof than he is, but I try to emulate his respect for other people's beliefs inasmuch as I'm able to do so.
in contrast with what "everyone else" or science has "proven".
If you're accurately describing their stance, they must be ignorant ones -- insasfar as, by definition, science doesn't "prove" anything. Proof is antithetical to science. Of course, I've explained that here so many times, and at such length, that I'll stop now lest everyone get bored and wander off.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Sorry, let me explain it in a different way. I didn't mean that it is correct or "true", but that in order to see it as wrong, you have got add things to it, that may or may not have been the original intent. That also means that it may not be being use to illistrate the same thing as the original intent. Also, let me say that I don't actually disagree with you personally, but I do see it being more or less important to ohers, for different reasons, potentually.
I can see what you're getting at, but every argument carries with it assumptions that are built into the argument. I don't think examining those assumptions necessarily adds or subtracts anything to it, or else we can never really examine any argument critically, having instead only to accept what it says on face value. However, in this case, as Wikipedia points out, Pascal clearly intended Jesus Christ to be his case, which leaves the which god argument perfectly valid, even adding nothing to his work. Still, even if we take Pascal's greater point, that if you have no faith, you should live as if you did, in order to potentially gain it, it still assumes that faith is something you would want to have, specifically faith in Jesus Christ (which opens a mess of worms, as to which version of Jesus do we want, ie Evangelical Jesus, Unitarian Jesus, Mormon Jesus, Islamic Jesus, etc.). It assumes that this faith adds something to your life that not having it does not. I do not share that assumption.
However, I can see that a person's spiritual journey is usually a winding one, and if Pascal's Wager helps you get to some sort of place where you have faith in whatever you have faith, then it holds value to you. As an argument for why you should believe in God, I don't think it holds the same value.
The most common thing I have experienced is this idea that "I am right because tere is no proof one way or the other", but "you are wrong and supid until you prove me wrong". Sort of a "reverse" discrimination double standard.
Is that their actual stance, or are they using the "burden of proof" argument? What you've quoted is garbled, illogical, and poorly-thought-out -- I can certainly believe that a very, very stupid atheist might indeed spout something like that. However, the idea that "the more outrageous the claim, the more evidence is needed to demonstrate it" is not at all illogical or unrealistic.
If you say you own a house in Wisconsin, and I turn around and say, "That's impossible, because I own the entire state of Wisconsin and all the houses in it!" -- it's perfectly reasonably for any bystander to tentatively assume that my facts are probably askew. All you need to show is a deed for the house -- reasonable claim, reasonable standard of evidence. I, on the other hand, would need to somehow demonstrate evidence of ownership of the whole state -- one deed wouldn't cut the mustard.
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
3. Liberal Quakers (78%)
4. Nontheist (75%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
6. Neo-Pagan (65%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (63%)
8. New Age (55%)
9. Taoism (52%)
10. Orthodox Quaker (47%)
11. Reform Judaism (47%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (46%)
13. Scientology (44%)
14. New Thought (42%)
15. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (36%)
16. Baha'i Faith (36%)
17. Jainism (34%)
18. Sikhism (29%)
19. Hinduism (25%)
20. Islam (23%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (23%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (23%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (21%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (19%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (14%)
26. Roman Catholic (14%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (10%)
Now with added Urizen!
1. Secular Humanism (91.33)
2. Unitarian Universalism (88.5%)
3. Liberal Quakers (75.67%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (71.42%)
5. Nontheist (70.75%)
6. Neo-Pagan (66%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64.75%)
8. New Age (49.5%)
9. Taoism (49.33%)
10. Reform Judaism (48.25%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (46.42%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (43.58%)
13. Sikhism (37.5%)
14. Scientology (36.5%)
15. New Thought (35.58%)
16. Jainism (32.5%)
17. Baha'i Faith (32.5%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (30.58%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (28.75%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (28.67%)
21. Hinduism (27.75%)
22. Seventh Day Adventist (27%)
23. Roman Catholic (26.17%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (26.17%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (26%)
26. Islam (25.83%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (14.08%)
|
I guess it just makes me wonder how some of the people I see on here are in real life, because they're reflexively so very hostile to anyone asking any questions whatsoever regarding their beliefs. If you're this big a doof on Paizo.com, how are you in real life?
Beckett has actually done a really good job. I was really going to get into it. Now, I don't feel I need to ... that much.
However, then there are things like this statement and I ask myself -- "Do they really think that calling people 'a doof' is civil?"
James -- all the questions you ask, can be turned around toward atheists. Why are atheists so defensive? Why do atheists feel so threatened by their lack of faith that they feel the apparent need to post in a thread that was pretty obviously not for them? It makes me wonder how some of the people here are in real life because they're so reflexively very hostile to anyone asking any questions whatsoever regarding their lack of beliefs.
I've heard here countless times about how terrible and awful all religion is because of all the atrocities and wars that happen. Yet there are plenty of cases of atrocities (aside from my spelling -- I'm feeling lazy) without religion -- can we therefore say that all lack of religion is equally bad? Yet this is done countless times in the name of "civility" -- and when people are called on it, then they raise their hands and say that Christians are just trying to silence discussion just because the views differ.
Try things from the other point of view. Try suggesting that atheists don't have morals. I mean, they don't, right? Christians get their morals from a magic book, as do other religions -- but atheists don't have any magic book and therefore don't have any morals. I can even say that it's my opinion. I can even say that it's true. Yet if it gets suggested -- well just make sure that you have marshmallows on hand for the flame feast that would ensue. I've seen it.
Just for the record -- we are not "threatened". We don't care if we have a discussion. We don't care if we are "challenged". All we care is that if you do so, if you want to learn, if you want to discuss, or challenge or whatever, that you do so without the accusing tone. In the past week, I can't even begin to tell you just how many times I've been told what I believe and it's been wrong. I can't tell you how many times I've been told that what I believe is "bad" because of a war we entered into a thousand years ago. Believe me, I don't need you or anyone else telling me what I believe.
Further, there has been some discussion (or questions) as to why there isn't a thread about atheists sharing their lack of faith. Mostly because I've actually heard very few atheist testimonies that didn't talk about just how bad a Christian, or Christians, or the church is or something similar and how that turned them "to the light" of atheism. I'm sure that Christians could say the same thing -- I've certianly encountered enough atheists to feel that I'm on the right "side" -- yet you see very very little of that. Someone shared a rather nice poem/testimony that was from an atheist -- yet even that one (and it was really very neutral and nice) asked "Why can't Christians just forget about God and enjoy things like I can?" Which is really no better than saying "Why can't you atheists just see and appreciate all the things that God has done?" Both are accusing, neither is helpful, and both sides have at times had difficulty understanding that.
|
The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?
There are people both atheist and believer who are completely intolerant of other peoples religious views. Both of these type of people are wrong.
The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?There are people both atheist and believer who are completely intolerant of other peoples religious views. Both of these type of people are wrong.
Even if it's the Westboro Baptist Church? I prefer to be intolerant toward them. ;-)
|
|
Even if it's the Westboro Baptist Church? I prefer to be intolerant toward them. ;-)The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?There are people both atheist and believer who are completely intolerant of other peoples religious views. Both of these type of people are wrong.
I think that most of us are. And I also think that that is ok.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
However, then there are things like this statement and I ask myself -- "Do they really think that calling people 'a doof' is civil?"
It is when you realize the words I use for some of the opinions I hear on here. ;)
James -- all the questions you ask, can be turned around toward atheists. Why are atheists so defensive? Why do atheists feel so threatened by their lack of faith that they feel the apparent need to post in a thread that was pretty obviously not for them? It makes me wonder how some of the people here are in real life because they're so reflexively very hostile to anyone asking any questions whatsoever regarding their lack of beliefs.
The problem with your suggestion is that Atheists aren't an organized group with a codified set of beliefs. Individual atheists are defensive and offensive and any number of things, but they're nothing as a group. However, I could just as easily ask why specific people are so defensive, but I didn't want to make them feel any more vilified than they already feel. However, if you feel so very tarred with a broad brush, then I would ask that you try not to tar others in the same way and I'll do the same.
And honestly, the reason so many Atheists are so hostile to religion is that religion is the predominant assumption in this world, especially in the United States and very specifically in parts of it. If you are not religious, you are faced with a very real, very present discrimination. A study from 2006 found that:
Lead researcher, Penny Edgell, noted that Atheists:
"...offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years....It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common 'core' of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that 'core' has historically been religious....Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong. Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good'." 6,7 Source
I would imagine that would be why some Atheists have a bad view of religion. Do them a favor and provide them with a better view of it by being the example they see.
In my case, I'm not an Atheist, though I usually sympathize with the underdog. I didn't become agnostic because of religion but rather because it didn't fulfill the needs I felt in myself. It was only after I admitted my agnosticism to myself that I learned that the Catholic priest that was such close friends with my family was sent to our parish because he had molested two boys in Boston. That little bit of information will sure put a sour taste in your mouth, I tell you. It didn't color my view of religion, but it nail the final nail into the coffin of me believing that the Catholic hierarchy is a very real and present evil in the world, despite having as its members some very good people. Still, it rots from the inside and it would do the world a lot of good to see it finally fall.
|
|
I just wan to point out I don't believe all atheists are bad or wrong, or that I think I am right over them or better. Just that I was trying to answer the question I saw from my experiences. I really do not want this to come off as I'm agaisnt atheists, which I'm not.
I have met many christians, catholics, or other religions that do either exactly the things I mentioned, or similar enough, so I can see things both ways. Just that a lot of the arguements I hear from atheists tend to be from the point of view that atheism is the logical and correct point of view while others are somehow wrong and need to be criticed and explained, or the default assumtion is that the religious understanding is wrong from the start. For example science both proves and legitimizes atheism while disproving and denounces religion, which is absolutely not th case. Neither is it the case, per se, that science prooves their is a God, or that the Greek gods are real, or magic really exists, etc. . . It gives strong evidence for and against both, but only when teamed with other things.
|
|
The problem with your suggestion is that Atheists aren't an organized group with a codified set of beliefs. Individual atheists are defensive and offensive and any number of things, but they're nothing as a group.
The problem is that neither are "Christians". Yet we consistently get lumped together all the time as well without any real understanding or appreciation for what I (or we?) actually believe.
Do them a favor and provide them with a better view of it by being the example they see.
I have strived to do just that. Ask around or actually read my posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I just wan to point out I don't believe all atheists are bad or wrong, or that I think I am right over them or better. Just that I was trying to answer the question I saw from my experiences. I really do not want this to come off as I'm agaisnt atheists, which I'm not.
I am! They're all a$$... waitaminute...
Just that a lot of the arguements I hear from atheists tend to be from the point of view that atheism is the logical and correct point of view while others are somehow wrong and need to be criticed and explained, or the default assumtion is that the religious understanding is wrong from the start. For example science both proves and legitimizes atheism while disproving and denounces religion, which is absolutely not th case. Neither is it the case, per se, that science prooves their is a God, or that the Greek gods are real, or magic really exists, etc. . . It gives strong evidence for and against both, but only when teamed with other things.
That's the rub, isn't it? You can't disprove anything. And no one has been able to prove that God exists. SO saying that, until someone proves the existence of God, I will not say that there is a God, is a perfectly logical thing to say. This is why I view faith and reason as being two completely different spheres; if you try to mix them, you inevitably run into problems.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
The problem is that neither are "Christians". Yet we consistently get lumped together all the time as well without any real understanding or appreciation for what I (or we?) actually believe.
This is a bit silly. After 2,000 years, you guys got a basic set of beliefs that you subscribe to that defines Christianity. Atheists haven't got nearly the same thing, and you know it. I'll give you some wiggle room in your arguments, but that's a little too much wiggle, Moff.
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Khristos, "Christ", literally "anointed one") is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[2] Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[3]
Do them a favor and provide them with a better view of it by being the example they see.
I have strived to do just that. Ask around or actually read my posts.
Ha! I have; I actually complimented you on that in another thread. I respect your beliefs, and you seem to be genuine and open in them; still, it's a statement that bears repeating because you're not the only one who will read this.
|
|
I don't think that hey are completely different, but rather that different peopels understanding is more heavily based on one or the other. For example, I have faith and I have reasons and reasoning for that faith. I feel and I also study and have an intellectual and logical understanding for my belief in God. Atheists and Christians/oter religions all have a mix of the same, too. It really isn't oppossing. I know atheists that don't believe in God just because that's how the "feel" and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort. Or arguements that evolution, as understood, is completely broken and wrong when looking at human beings, (whose natural birthing process of one offspring that is weak and helpless for an extended period of time), giraffs, whose anatomy and biological processes are completely contrary to the principles of evelution in a species, (a creature that could not have survived and thrived if it had to over thousands of years develope into what it is now for it's species differentiating advantages), or that the human eye, the human body, the world itself are to complex and tempermentally specific to be random.
|
|
This is a bit silly. After 2,000 years, you guys got a basic set of beliefs that you subscribe to that defines Christianity. Atheists haven't got nearly the same thing, and you know it. I'll give you some wiggle room in your arguments, but that's a little too much wiggle, Moff.
If discussions ended with "Christians believe in Christ", then yes. Yet I actually disagree (rather strongly) with many Catholic beliefs. Mormons and Westboro get lumped together with "Christians" as examples. I know that there are some similarities with "Christians", but then don't all atheists have at least some similarities? Shoot -- even the test that many of us have taken list a good number of different varieties of "Christian" -- how many different varieties of atheist are there?
Don't get me wrong. I know what you're saying. I'm just saying that we're probably more "individualistic" that we're made out to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Don't get me wrong. I know what you're saying. I'm just saying that we're probably more "individualistic" that we're made out to be.
I'm not arguing that there aren't differences between Christian sects, but comparing Christianity and Atheism and coming up with the idea that Christians are as unorganized as Atheists is patently false and doesn't pass the smell test. There are organized groups of like-minded Christians: they're called sects or churches or branches, etc. You may not fit exactly in your chosen branch of Christianity, but you're pretty close (and if you're not, odds are good that there's a group out there that fits you better). Atheism is nowhere near as advanced in organization or differentiation.
And the test is in no way a sum total of the religious or non-religious groups out there. I get lumped in with Atheists as an agnostic, even though what I believe is fundamentally not atheist. I do not deny the existence of a God/s, I just don't know and don't see it as knowable. At least if you get lumped in with the Westboro guys, you could both agree that Christ was swell before you started the inevitable knockdown/drag out.
This is a bit silly. After 2,000 years, you guys got a basic set of beliefs that you subscribe to that defines Christianity. Atheists haven't got nearly the same thing, and you know it. I'll give you some wiggle room in your arguments, but that's a little too much wiggle, Moff.If discussions ended with "Christians believe in Christ", then yes. Yet I actually disagree (rather strongly) with many Catholic beliefs. Mormons and Westboro get lumped together with "Christians" as examples. I know that there are some similarities with "Christians", but then don't all atheists have at least some similarities? Shoot -- even the test that many of us have taken list a good number of different varieties of "Christian" -- how many different varieties of atheist are there?
Don't get me wrong. I know what you're saying. I'm just saying that we're probably more "individualistic" that we're made out to be.
All I can say is that I don't ascribe to a lot of the common atheist attitudes as those would stereotypically draw from the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris schools of thought. This would make more sense/appeal to me than what is considered the mainstream view.
That and I'm a fan of Chuang-Tzu. He was the Yoda of his day.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.
If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
|
|
...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
Could make you a puffin, ya know. Stop lumping us with ducks!
Guys, this sort of seems like it might become a little too heated. This seems like a really good discusion, and I don't want anyone getting mad or the topic getting shut down. :)
Trust me. This is civil compared to what it usually is. It's not getting shut down.
And what do we burn besides witches?Trust me. This is civil compared to what it usually is. It's not getting shut down.
MOAR witches!!!
|
|
Could make you a puffin, ya know. Stop lumping us with ducks!...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
Apologies, I made the mistake of saying christian in the religious vs atheist sense that it usually means christian specifically. What I mean is people that believe in a singular god, or what we D&D players might think of as an overdeity, but not the religions associated with monotheism. For example, they believe that there must be a god because even the big bang had to have some sort of cause, and other scientific or mathmatic reasons, but believe that religious texts are all just story books.
|
|
Guys, this sort of seems like it might become a little too heated. This seems like a really good discusion, and I don't want anyone getting mad or the topic getting shut down. :)Trust me. This is civil compared to what it usually is. It's not getting shut down.
Didn't want it to build up to that, is what I mean.
...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
There are Christians out there that believe in God but do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. And there are Christians that do not believe in an anthropomorphic deity, but they subscribe to the moral teachings of Jesus.
I imagine there are sects that will be aghast to this, though.
|
|
Apologies, I made the mistake of saying christian in the religious vs atheist sense that it usually means christian specifically. What I mean is people that believe in a singular god, or what we D&D players might think of as an overdeity, but not the religions associated with monotheism. For example, they believe that there must be a god because even the big bang had to have some sort of cause, and other scientific or mathmatic reasons, but believe that religious texts are all just story books.Could make you a puffin, ya know. Stop lumping us with ducks!...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
Huh? No no no. I'm an atheist. I'm just one of the quiet ones.
Huh? No no no. I'm an atheist. I'm just one of the quiet ones.
There's nothing quiet about you, Myna bird. Awk!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...There are Christians out there that believe in God but do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. And there are Christians that do not believe in an anthropomorphic deity, but they subscribe to the moral teachings of Jesus.
I imagine there are sects that will be aghast to this, though.
Yeah, I still gotta call Duck on the God but not Jesus people. They need to pick a different name. Like Ians. It's Christianity without Christ!
As for the others, them's just Thomas Jefferson-types. And we all know what happened with that whole "Let's Start Our Own Country" thing. Sheesh. ;)