|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism, a dangerous idea? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Are you saying that any killing is a sin? Then the new Testament makes no distinction between killing and murder? I said earlier that I don't know. I said we should start a thread on it.
What is your Biblical basis for this? Is it the "turn the other cheek" stuff? What about the Ananias and Sapphira? What about the end times when the believers are supposed to fight the unbelievers in the last battle? Obviously, God has plans to use his chosen people to exact punishment upon the heathens in the future. He has done so in the past. What makes this time in between different? Most of all, how does this apparent variability get me closer to understanding the absolute morals of this God? This just proves my point that it is debatable based on a book that Christians follow. If I was an atheist, we would not be having this discussion.
Yeah-yeah...those babies hearts were so hard that I'm suprised they could pump any blood at all. It wasn't like that was colateral damage from a bomb. Those Hebrew soldiers had to look the baby in the eye and stab it with a sword. They were part of a hardened society, they were going to have hardened hearts, and God must have knew it. I have just as much trouble as you with it, I can't understand why babies were killed, but that is one possible explanation. I do not pretend to know God's ways of the OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Digging your heels in now, are you? Funny how you keep fulfilling my description of your tactics, be they consciously done or not! Again, I say what is the difference? You are not arguing the point, and getting lost in a sidebar that has nothing to do with what you first accused me of. Something you always do. You seem to think by proving that lot's and everyone are different, that somehows proves your point, when it doesn't matter whether lots and everyone are the same or not, for purposes of this forum rule breaking sidebar. The point was that you decided to speak for a bunch of people, and attack the person not the arguement. I don't have debating tactics, I am here just discussing, maybe you are debating, that is why you resort to attacking people. Why doesn't an admin tell you that attacking the person is wrong? It must be a conspiracy. It has been noted already in these forums, that I am a catylist for people, and I always get attacked by several. I receive emails confirming this, and there are people who stick up for me when I make correct assertions. All this happens, most of the time, simply because I am Christian. Sometimes it happens when I make incorrect assertions, and the wise polite people will point it out, without insulting me. Then I gain a chance to grow. I do not gain a chance to grow when I am verbaly assaulted. That is the point of this sidebar we are having, not lots and everyone. Stick to the point, and maybe you'll start understanding me a little better, and explain why I am wrong in a rational non-insulting manor, and we can make progress. We have been talking together for how many years now? I'll tell ya, over two years, and you have always resorted to this attacking tactic. It is getting old. I would love to express myself more clearly, so that you could understand me, but I have little chance, as long as you keep resorting to this tactic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, it is precisely that "many" and "everyone" are NOT equivalent words that is the point of this sidebar. You misrepresented me. You accused me of speaking for "everyone" when I most certainly did not. Now that I have called you on it and have you backed into a corner, you are rather astonishingly suggesting that it doesn't really matter. I am sorry that you feel so persecuted, but when you persistently do these things, and then pretend like you didn't, or that it doesn't really matter, then I am simply forced to press the matter. However, this time, you win. I give up. "Many" and "all" really do mean the same thing, as you say. I fully expect to hear absolutely no objection from you, EVER, if I make a claim about all Christians holding a certain position, even if only "many" Christians actually hold it. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
riVeRrat writes:
What point does it prove? That Christians have a better moral center because they follow a book that can be, and is, subjectively interpreted in wildly varying ways to justify the moral CHOICES of those who claim to follow Christ? This just proves my point that it is debatable based on a book that Christians follow. If I was an atheist, we would not be having this discussion. How is this any better than the subjective moral choices made by athiests based on the society that they grew up in and the parents that they had? The whole point of the discussion on murder was to show that there is no moral absolute that Christians can define in detail based only on the Bible. The most abhorant act that we can do to another human being, murder, is not even defined adequately enough to know what it is. There are even examples of what I would consider murder lauded as great deeds. God may as well have said "Thou shalt not mebecafix" for all the understanding that we can glean from His Word.Even the "Do unto others...." is completely subjective, it depends on what you want not what the other person wants. As far as this relates to the "harm" that athiest beliefs do, I think it pretty much tosses out the idea that subjective morals are a harm to society. Everyone's morals seem to be subjective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2922 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
My statement was the one of the stock answers from the repertoire of fundementalist answers to tricky questions. I am not prepared to defend it, just making you aware of the thoughts in that community on that particular subject. No need to make me aware of fundamentalist arguments. I pretty much know them all, being a surviver of fundamentalist indoctrination. Anyway, you might want to be more clear about when you are speaking for yourself and when you are citing fundamentalists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
No, it is precisely that "many" and "everyone" are NOT equivalent words that is the point of this sidebar. No schraf, this is the point of the sidebar. This is the topic that started it.
quote: As usual, you have drifted away from the topic, to somehow undermine what I am saying, and falsify my words, by making me appear wrong. This only backs up my original assertion that you have a comprehension problem, or maybe it is your attention span. So you have backed up my point, and haven't addressed any attempt of mine to put this BS to rest, and learn to get along.
However, this time, you win. I give up. We both win, if we can get along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2899 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
This just proves my point that it is debatable based on a book that Christians follow. If I was an atheist, we would not be having this discussion. So the whole point is that christians all have their own moral systems, but they like to justify them by refrencing a book. Atheists have their own moral systems too, but they just justify them without referencing a book. And this makes atheism dangerous? Its abundantly clear that the good book can support any moral stance, so for heathens like me its very hard to see why atheists should be singled out as dangerous? Anyway you actually can discuss ethics without using the bible, Muslim holy text or The tales of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. We do it all the time, discussing the consequences of actions, and claiming them to be wrong based on the particulars. If we disagree we can argue, until we reach the basic points we disagree on, and then either convince the other on our point of view or just agree to disagree. Nothing is added by referring to holy texts, or Gods, as can be seen by the simple fact that even among the same christian denomination, people disagree on the most basic moral tenets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And this makes atheism dangerous? Atheism is extremely dangerous. Name one successful atheist civilization. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Atheism is extremely dangerous. Name one successful atheist civilization. China (ABE - unless you consider Confucianism a religion) ABE - and now Japan Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
China?
China? You call that successful?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
China? You call that successful? Are you saying the largest population and 4th largest economy on Earth are unsuccessful?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yeah, I was talking about the Soviet Union once, and somebody said that the Soviet Union was actually religious. Would you disagree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Atheism is extremely dangerous. Name one successful atheist civilization. China
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If I am correctly reading the headline article in tomorrow's Chicago Tribune, maybe Ireland comes close. (The article suggests that they are abandoning catholicism in droves). Well, we have to decide what is meant by an "atheist civilization." Sometimes I think the USA is one too. If they would only admit it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Depends upon one's definition of religion. Is communism, or even Confucianism, a religion, or is it a political system. Is consumerism a religion? materialism? science? nihilism? Beatles? Grateful Dead? Star Trek? WalMart?
If one calls every form of adulation a religion, then the term religion means just adulation, not worship of a supreme being.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024