This is not an attack, but it is pointless to argue/discuss with religious believers.

Remove all ads!

I didn't notice it was mis-spelled...

You got it, all I was trying to say is that Revelations is in the New Testement, in fact it is the last book. You refreshed my memory on Gog and Magog, and where they come into play, but Gog and Mag evade me. I have no clue on the story involving them, I didn't even know they were in the Big Ol' Book.

 

Death is a part of the cycle of life. It doesn't mean we have to like it, but we do have to accept it and get on with our life.

Also, Natural disasters happen, not because of God's wrath or lack of empathy, but as a means of testing the souls of the survivors and the souls of those far away who can help. They happen because of the way the earth was designed.

I'm sure every parent would love to protect their children from getting hurt, but when you're in your early 20's, you don't want your mother tagging along when you go to the campus bar telling you not to drink or who you shouldn't be flirting with. Just like at some point, we have to make our way in the world. God has given us councel in the Bible, and it may have been taught by our parents or ministers, but there comes a time when we have to stand up and live it...

You're point proves nothing.

 

You ignored my point. My point is that the Bible says the reasons for our hardships are to improve us. I know we all need to get on and live with life - your view agrees with mine.

Its the traditional christian view - god works in mysterious ways, we must be strong and accept gods will etc is bull****.

oh and the whole thing about fearing god is crap too.

 

@Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

The schizo/ironic nature of this posts posit, was acknowledged and dealt with much earlier, you may not have noticed.

Your continued utterances within this thread following such a first remark as above seem to also defy your own statement, or have you made allowances for youself.

I have also already stated that my initial post title did not serve my purpose well, nor represent my position well, perhaps you didn't notice.

Lastly and I despair that I have to explain this yet again, The point/conclusion that you condemn me to in...

misses entirely my stated premise. You may not have noticed. But what I've repeatedly stressed, is not your version

And I have never expressed this extremity, or implied it nor wished to.

What I have stated is, given the apparent fact that we cant get proof, means that no-one has the right to demand that they have the Incontrovertable Truth.
(is the simplified version easier to understand?)

I have not claimed the experience of life is impossible to live or trust because no-one can know anything with absolute certainty.


In fact I know something with absolute certainty straight up.
Which is... Either you didn't bother to read and really think about this irritatingly & stupidly titled post's evolving contents. Or you just didn't understand the evolving premise.

How on earth can you state this and, (A) in recognition of this posts (that you have joined) wide range discussion, not comment on how religion is the standard tool of choice, practised, so people do not...

and (B) offer up the second half

as though your insight here is a revolutionary answer to the untenable conclusion that you have condemned me to. The implied presumption being that I have not the ability or grace or style or humanist position to expect that this revelation of yours (that has nothing to do with any premise I explored) wouldn't be taken by the readers as a given.

You miss my point completely, and then make me defend/reply to statements and positions I never made.

I expected it to be understood in the general sense, not have the absurd logical conclusion lumped to my thinking.

You took it to it's absurd logical conclusion, not I.

Do I sound irked? well at least I didn't address you by the short version of your name.

 

Wow kin hell, didn't mean to touch a raw nerve there! Given some of the comments that have been flying around in this thread (and I did read it) I felt my contribution was rather tame by camparison. Anyway, to respond...

I did notice. I even said:

...which kind of implies I noticed.

Well of course it's not your stated version. First of all, if it was, I would have quoted it, and secondly, why would I repeat exactly the same thing you said? People have already read it (more than once if they've gone through the whole thread) so they don't need to read it again. I was taking your statement and showing another way in which to interpret it. Sorry if you feel "condemned" by it.

Now you're the one putting words into other people's mouths. I never claimed my response was revolutionary, nor have I condemned you to anything, nor do I think you lack the style and or grace of a humanist position to expect such and answer. I think you need to chose your words a bit more carefully, as I really don't think condemned is what you meant there. It's a bit more dramatic than it needs to be. And if my response should be taken as given by all readers, then this mental excercise seems to lose a lot of its purpose, as it seems like we're exploring all possible options and extrapolations from the initial statement.

Oh please. Go down to the local pharmacy and buy some skin thickening cream if you are so easily offended. And you can call me just about anything you want and I won't be offended. Names used by others to address me on this board include (rarely) Aldeth the Foppish Idiot, but more commonly Aldeth, AtFI, AFI, Idiot, and even Mr. Idiot once. Take your pick, all are acceptable.

[ April 12, 2007, 17:13: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Proteus:

Actually, that's only one of many reasons the Bible says that bad things happen in this world. They can be tests of your faith and ways for you to grow, punishment for wrongs you have committed, ways to protect you from even worse outcomes (your car breaks down as opposed to being T-boned at 75 MPH), and the simple consequences of the actions of others. And that's just the ones He comes out and tells us about.

Wow, Kin, take a chill pill. How many times have I called you that, and you've never complained about it to me? The Honorable Mr. Idiot here is a respected member of the boards, and when he chooses to open his gaping jaws here in AoDA, it is an event that all should pay attention to. Disagreement is fine, but that was just rash.

Aldeth, much love.

 

Where to start. Best place I can think of is Humanism and Humanist. It pains me to see it misused. First and foremost Gnarf you haven't a clue what a Humanist is so please don't post about what you know nothing of. If you did a little research you would find that Humanism has no bearing on religion. You can, in fact, be both a humanist and religious. The thing about a humanist is that s/he does not defer to a deity for help. Instead a humanist believes it is up to people to find the truth, not seek it through revelation etc.. You err Gnarf, very much so in stating that Humanism is pride and in essence sin. Humanism has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with pride. It has nothing to do with holding humans above all else. Humanism also has no bearing on faith. In fact in embraces a kind of faith while at the same time stating that faith alone is not reason enough. Humanism embraces faith in people and our ability to find our way ourselves, without the need of a deity to guide us. Notice I said need, you can believe in your deity and their goodness. You can believe your deity has you best interests in mind and that you are watched over. You can believe all this and still have faith in yourself and be a humanist. However, if you need a deity to guide you, to set you on your path than you have no faith in yourself, and that truly is sad.

Gnarf, if you feel this is an attack, fine. You can take it that way and rant and rave never bettering yourself, or you can take it as a challenge. A challenge to learn. To educate yourself you may better understand, and thus debate(not argue and spew) the topic. Learn from your mistakes so that you don't repeat them. I know I make a lot of mistakes, but rarely are they the same mistakes.

While this was aimed at Gnarf for a specific incident I find it far to frequent that many people wade into a discussion wholly unprepared, with little or no knowledge on the subject. So the challenge I issued to Gnarf goes for everybody that has so. I have and will again do it, and when it is pointed out, or I realize it myself I will, and have educated myself.

Now for myself, I am Agnostic. I am a humanist. I despise religion(not belief or faith, merely religion). And I believe that I am a good person.

I have faith in mankind, and it is quite often tested. My faith in mankind is not blind faith, it is based upon seeing that most people are inherently good. Even in the worst of times, when the worst atrocities are being committed, you can find good in people.

I despise religion because of what religion has wrought. Religion is the driving force behind those greatest of atrocities. I have no problem with shared beliefs, faith in a higher being. Nor anything of that nature. The greatest wholly good people in history are people of faith in a higher power. I believe that these great people believed they were doing god's work and that he guided them to it. Is that statement sounding contradictory to my post about needing guidance? It isn't. I never said they needed guidance, only that they sought it. To do as they have they have to believe in people, and they would do exactly as they have regardless of belief. Religion, on the other hand attempts to strip people of their ability to choose and their faith in people. Religion would have you place everything in the hands of someone else. A person that is supposedly guided by God. That person can tell people to do good things in his name, or to do bad things in his name. Either way they believe that they are doing God's will and therefore are doing good and will be rewarded for it. Why is there need for reward and punishment?

Here is where I have to blast someone based on a post that person made, though I will not name them. What makes you think that your morals are better than my own simply because I do not recieve them from your Deity? Simply uttering that makes me doubt you actually have morals. Your religion may share some of the morals that I have, but having read your posts I honestly beliive that if your religion said that killing children was a good thing you would kill them, because you follow your religion and would be rewarded for it in the afterlife, or punished for not doing it in that same afterlife. I follow my morals for the simple reason that I know it to be right, and if the Christian god proves true it would not alter how I live my life. If it proved that God wanted child sacrifices I would openly oppose God because I know it to be wrong. Neither reward nor punishment could alter my moral compass because I believe in myself, not some religion.

And before the stupid religious people(I said stupid, meaning those that are stupid, not all religious people, for many of them have an inner moral compass the same as mine) start to rant and rave I feel equally towards atheists. Atheist are unbending. I could hold a magic ball in front of them, granted it's power by God, giving definitive proof of a higher power and they would simply say "science can explain that it isn't godly, we just don't yet understand it." And science may well explain it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a God, because science and god are not mutually exclusive. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, but it may be able to prove the existence of god. Strange as it may sound. Science can, however, disprove religion, and it does so quite often, because of what religion actually is. It's a man-made institution. Religion is not the same as belief in God/s. A religion could very well have been handed down to man by god, but the instant man touched it, it was no longer the same thing that god had given man, because man is inherently fallible.

For those of you that do not believe in evolution I offer this, do a search on insect research in regards to evolution and adaptation. You'll find that they have managed to breed out traits, breed in traits, and breed insects that are quite different from the ones they started as, yet very much the same. While some people, unwilling to accept evolution, will simply call it adaptation. They do not understand, or refuse to understand what evolution is. It is adaptation over time. Adapting to survive in an enviroment is the beginning of evolution. Evolution is bred out of necessity and can actually be studied thanks to insects.


Kin, I leave you with this. It is never pointless to discuss your belief system with a religious person unless that religious person is unwilling to have an intelligent discussion. The best discussions on religion I have ever had were with ministers. Not once has a Minister tried to persuade me, even knowing I am Agnosic. They have openly debated me, opened holes in my reasoning, just as I opened holes in theirs and we both ended up the better for it. Finding holes in your logic is the greatest experience you can have in debate, because it requires you to better yourself before having another discussion on the same topic. In one conversation I managed to open someones eyes on evolution, while they opened mine on carbon-dating (not nearly as exact as I thought).

I'm sure I've missed topics posted here that I would like to address and I hope to eventually get to them. And please people take up my challenge to pursue more knowledge, then attempt to punch holes in my logic so that I may better myself as well(that also means don't post the same uneducated bs I see far too often in reply).

 

If people try to prove me wrong on the things that I believe, arguing might be pointless and lacking fun.
If they try to understand me and let me understand them, arguing will be far from pointless.

 

Dear Aldeth

What can I say.

I am the idiot.

 

Kin,
I think the truth is that you are not an idiot, just rather jaded and bitter from having the same conversations with unmoving people over and over again throughout your life. Believe me, I get it. I can't not understand, being an Agnostic living in the Bible Belt. I've been luckier than you, so it seems, as my work and my personality gives me the opportunity to talk to all kinds of people. I get more opportunity to meet the christians, jews, muslims, buddhist, and so on that are more open-minded. If I were you I'd talk to Buddhists and Jews. They seem the most open-minded of the larger religions. Buddhism itself has no deities, but allows for a belief in them. As such it and Janism are the most open-minded religions I believe you will find. Wicca is another open-minded religion, while it has it's own gods and goddesses it also allows for other gods to exist. Not all religion is so closed, you just haven't been fortunate in your dealings.

 

Agreed: Obedience to God should be out of love, not fear.

Hence placing human intellect above the divine.

Pride is not rejoicing in what you have, but in rejoicing in having "more" than someone else or being "better" then someone else. By your emphasis on human intellect you place yourself above those that simply follow what they've been taught. It seems as if you revel in re-inventing the wheel when it comes to morality. That is where the charge of pride is leveled.

I disagree, and have stated the support for my charges above.

And you assume that the faithful come to that blindly? Are you saying that I have come by my faith blindly or that I have given up intellectual pursuits? If so, then you are sadly mistaken.

How come so few actually figure that out?

I'm not so sure of this. A proper Christian has many of the same priorities as a humanist, but we have a "textbook" and "instructors" on this morality and whil you are re-inventing morality to learn how to live, we are practicing what the cheat sheet (which you claim won't be much different from the answers you say we should find) tells us. Who's further ahead?

I have been, but there's much to study on the topic. Humanism has been denounced by my faith, and that even caused me to pause at first, but as I began to study, I began to understand...

I have learned from my mistakes, that's part of how I got where I am.

Or simply an unpopular point of view. You see Humanism one way, I see it another (and your comments have re-enforced what I believed not altered them).

The Institution, not the doctrine, the people or the components. I get that, and in some cases, the charges are warranted (see Religion and War thread). Religion, when abused, can be the most destructive force in the world. That is what scares the hell out of me (no pun intended).

It's the Attrocities that need to be addressed and the guilty parties must answer for their unethical behaviour. But I see more and more of the cruel and malicious behaviour as religion takes a less prominent role in society...

I come back to something Drew said in another thread. Religion is a tool. When placed in the hands of a good, responsible person, it can be a tool for great good. When placed in the hands of an evil or irresponsible person, you get the attrocities you speak of.

That's a rather narrow view of Religion. Religion charges us with things to do and not do, but it's up to us to actually choose to obey. Sitting in a church and worshipping is not enough, going forth and doing good is needed.

This is justice. When you sin, you commit a crime against God, and must pay for your crimes. In return, when you do God's will, the blessings are like wages you would get from an employer. Just as you are paid for your time and service, God rewards you for your time and service. This too is justice.

Assuming that mine came from a "perfect" God, and yours comes from an "imperfect" human, there will be some errors. Simple logic.

You assume that I have such a moral compass. Assume that God is "good" and shedding innocent blood is "evil", then a good God would NEVER command evil.

But what if there were things that Christianity includes that your moral beliefs exclude that are good (really good, not evil called good as in your earlier example). Do you then shortchange yourself in the afterlife because you valued your own intellect over revealed doctrine?

About evolution: I don't think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, but both sides are misrepresented in public arena. The Christian right insists on the "day" as 24 hours (as pointed out in the Conservative rival to Wikipedia thread), while evolution has been publicly represented as humans evolving from apes (which Aldeth has repeatedly tried to explain). Replace "day" with "Creative Period" where a specific length is not defined and re-evaluate Genesis 1. Would the physical planet not have to exist first? Then we'd need stars and moons next. Then having water in varied bodies (rivers, lakes seas, streams, oceans etc...). From there we would need plant life. Then Animals (could Dinosaurs have been earlier attempts to design modern animals?) would be next to come into existance. Humans (God's crowning achievement) would finally be ready to place on the earth. Evolution would be a more detailed description of the fourth and fifth creative periods...

 

You still fail to see what humanism is. Humanism does not elevate man above god. You can believe in a higher being and still believe in yourself. Believing in oneself and in people in general is not pride. You twist it to suit your needs.

The realization that there is a God still would not change me morally. That is not to say I cannot grow morally, but that I cannot be persuaded to go against what I know to be good and true.

You have demonstrated that sin you seem to like to levy against us yourself simply in asserting that your morals are better than mine. I make no such claim. I only say that I arrived at mine through a different avenue. You also fail to realize a nice little flaw, that even if god is perfect you are not and you are prone to interpret these morals in an imperfect manner.

Ahh, but your god has murdered the innocent and the righteous alike if we are to believe the Bible. Both are evil acts. After all the ends do not justify the means. Yet you still follow.

You act as if you think you're better than others because of your faith. You aren't. Your faith in god, your faith in what god has given you, your god does not make you better than anyone else. You can try to dispute that you claim to be better, but there is a mountain of evidence here on the forums that says differently. No one is better than any one else. You faith isn't better than someone elses. You need to stop measuring worth. It's not a matter of good better best, it's just a matter of different.

My killing babies reference was, in fact, a trap. Your religious teachings(the bible) not only shows it being sanctioned, but God committing the act. Your own God, as the bible tells it, slaughtered the innocent and the righteous.

The reason I set that nice little trap is because I am tired of the vast amounts of ignorance. If you were truly intimately familiar with your religion you would have seen it as a trap. I do not believe you when you say you studied humanism, because no one that has studied humanism could have made the ignorant statements that you did. They were ignorant, hurtful statements, it's that simple.

Finally I come to evolution. And for once I can actually find some common ground. I agree that evolution and creationism can coexist, because god could have started life in a primitive form and simply guided it along. Where I diverge is that we can't actually be sure, even in religion, that humans are the crowning achievement. I don't believe we are. We have a long way to go, imo. And what about the potential for extraterrestrial life? We know it has been there, and, given the odds, that it is there in many many places.

 

Dear Aldeth
I meant what I last posted, I did you a disservice, I really thought you were having a dig without having read or understood my intent, even through my awkward and hasty points(nice apt sharp word).

Shadow Assassin
Thank you for your words.
I suspect you are a patient and tolerant human whomever you are interacting with.

I believe in face to face I do a lot better than I see myself doing via internet forum. My natural empathy seems lowered and my blunt seems raised.

Truthfully I haven't had a hard time with religionists over the years. Generally having stated our relative positions, we've been able to get on in the world and just not raise the subject.

Although I do have one long term staunch believer dear friend (over 35years of friendship), with whom I still share frequent phone calls, who ends every call with "I'll pray for you..."

He says it to stir me up (plus I have nodoubt he does include me in his prayers, good on him, who am I to not hedge my bets) but his sense of humour in stating "I'll pray for you." at the end of each & every conversation is definitely evil haha!

I've been following your measured discourse Shadow
thank you fellow earthling, and keep up the good work


and extraterrestrials? you bloody bet.
What statistical improbability that we are alone? I don't think so.
Doesn't mean we'll ever meet, big universe, perceived lightspeed dragfactor etc etc,

Of course with the timelength of the universe only beginning in, what was it 4004bc? I could be wrong. About everything.

[ April 13, 2007, 12:53: Message edited by: kin hell ]

 

I dont like the idea of god being the only source of god.

quite simply, humans are all too keen to take responsibility off their shoulders. and the thing is, if you arent a good person, you have only yourself to blame. if you are a good person, you have only yourself to thank.

if I was god, I would feel more proud and happy if people were good because of a desire to good than a desire to please me. trying to please me by being good would be so obviously fake I would send them on the first train downstairs. that is, if I were judgmental and unforgiving.

 

@Shadowed Assassin:
Actually, I think Gnarff is hitting humanism pretty fairly. Humanism says that, while there may be a divine, people should rely on themselves and not that divine. They should figure out the rules of the game themselves, they should figure out the best way to play that game by themselves, and that way, whether they mess up or succeed, they have only themselves to blame.

It's kind of like the guy that knows nothing about bikes, yet still tries to assemble one himself, totally disregarding the instruction manual. If that isn't pride, it is stupidity and masichism. I think it is the former.

You'll have to cite that to me. I'll admit that God has ordered the extermination of an entire group, men, women, children, and even cattle, but if you look at what happens when the Jews don't, you get some idea of why God told them to do that. You know those palestinians that are causing oh so much trouble for Israel now? They are the modern decendents of some of those groups. They have basically been in a state of undeclared war on Israel and the Jews for the past 3000 years, ever since the Jews didn't kill them.

Also, every group that God as so commanded to be totally destroyed was involved in child sacrifice. Apparently God REALLY hates child sacrifice. Understandable, really.

Proteus:

... You may want to re-think that one.

Seriously, though, realise that, as far as the Bible is concerned, good is, by definition, the will of God. If you obey God, you are doing good. If you disobey God, you are doing evil. I'm guessing there's also a neutral for things like what flavor of icecream you're buying and such. Anyway, even a pagan can do good if they do what God wants them to, what is right. They are still living in unforgiven sin, but they can do good.

 

ahh, but NOG, knowing something about Humanism it looks like you intentionally skipped over an entire aspect. I'll ignore the obvious slight for now and address your next statement.

So the killing of every first born, that wasn't a bad thing? He could have just killed the pharoah and those that would try to avenge him. Instead he killed innocent children, women, and even the righteous. Nevermind the smearing of animal blood. He flooded the world, killed all. He could have just struck down those that deserved it. Killed everyone in Sodom and Gamora. Did the innocent children deserve that? It's a choice he made. This is all according to the bible ofcourse. The ends never justify the means. That's, pretty much, basic morality.

As for your next statement. Well that's my biggest issue with christianity(other religions as well, but you're speaking from a christian view). It's unwillingness to accept when it errs, or that it can even be wrong. The greatest difference between so many pagan religions and yours it that while they believe they're right, they don't dispute that you can still be right in worshiping who you do, too.

Ever stopped to consider that reasoning may be flawed when it comes to the necessity of violence. Look at Buddhism and Janism, they preach peace. The religions have not been spread through bloodshed, yet flourish none the less. They flourish in places that everything other than Hinduism and them are outlawed. When they came to the regions only Hinduism was allowed. Christianity was spread at the tip of a sword and the muzzle of a rifle. Buddhism and Janism were spread through peace. So tell me again why your war ravaged religion is better than the peaceful one.

 

Don't sweat it kin hell. I wasn't really so much offended by what you said, but more surprised by the vehemence of your response. But your statement I quoted above is absolutely true. Generally speaking, written communication is less precise than verbal communication. Often times, it is difficult to show emotions in written communication, even with the help of emoticons. Also, you completely lose the ability to see facial and body expressions, which do in fact form a large part of the communicative process. Finally, in verbal communication, you have an immediate back-and-forth, feedback process that you lose when you use text.

All of this was amply demonstrated in your response to my previous post. I thought I was making a rather benign statement, and after reading your response, I felt like I should ask around to see if anyone got the license plate number of that truck that just ran me over.

To be fair, one point of your criticism was spot on - I didn't once address religion in a topic that obviously deals with that very topic. That is because I really don't think about religion much at all. I am non-religious, but that is not to say that I have any inherent dislike of religion. I have adopted a live and let live stance when it comes to religion, and that's the point I (poorly) attempted to communicate. Regardless of what religion any given person practices, if it works for them and they gain comfort through it, then great - I have no problems with them.

Also, I don't really consider myself a humanist, despite displaying many of their characteristics. I guess I'm saying that one way isn't necessarily any better than another way. I know immoral people who are outwardly very religious, and I know very moral agnostics. It simply doesn't work to try and pigeon-hole people into nice, easily distinguishable groups, although it is necessary to some extent when speaking in generalities.

 

How about Exodus 7-12?

God inflicts various plagues upon the Egyptians because the Pharaoh won't let the Israelites leave. After each plague God hardens the Pharaoh's heart, so that he still won't let them leave. God even kills all the firstborns of Egypt, because the Pharaoh is stubborn - which God himself makes him be. What's up with that?

Kind of makes you question free will, as well, if God can just harden your heart like that.

Edit: Damn it, two new posts while I was typing this one.

 

NOG, I read your earlier post on free will and evil.


You say that there were three options, and that God couldnt remove evil because that would remove free will.

But what makes you think free will is evil? why is it evil to make a choice and have knowledge? If he were so powerful, he could remove all evil from mens hearts and allow free will.

Your God punishes and kills the innocent and revels in violence.

 

Proteus, I would not go there. The old testament is full of vegeance from god. The New testament is full of a loving god and people helping each other. Most of the greatest goodly people in recent history were christian. Christianity was behind the inquisition, yes, but it was also behind the Renaissance. The Christian God does not revel in violence. That statement is one heck of a leap. You will notice that what I say about the christian god is always followed by according to the bible. There is a reason for that. If you do a little research on your own you just might find out what that reason is. Don't reply with speculation, find the facts of the matter. They're there. After such a blatant attack on what had already been addressed I might take a moment and ask myself why?