Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 8:28 AM
160 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, JonF, Percy (Admin), ProtoTypical, RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 153 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,562 Year: 2,599/19,786 Month: 681/1,918 Week: 269/266 Day: 6/35 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
John
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 142 (17364)
09-13-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mammuthus
09-13-2002 8:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
This should have read:

SOME religious people have no standards to appeal to.....

I don't think all religious people are as bigoted and arrogant in their worldviews as TJ. Plenty of relgious people have very nice Personal standards....just like plenty non-religious people.


Respectfully, I think your first formulation is correct.

Plenty of religious people have great personal standards, but wasn't the point that due to the fact that books must be interpretted the claim to absolute moral standards is false?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 8:24 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 10:44 AM John has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 92 of 142 (17367)
09-13-2002 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by John
09-13-2002 10:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
This should have read:

SOME religious people have no standards to appeal to.....

I don't think all religious people are as bigoted and arrogant in their worldviews as TJ. Plenty of relgious people have very nice Personal standards....just like plenty non-religious people.


Respectfully, I think your first formulation is correct.

Plenty of religious people have great personal standards, but wasn't the point that due to the fact that books must be interpretted the claim to absolute moral standards is false?


Hi John,
I stand corrected...I re-read my sentence and it sounded like a sweeping condemnation of all religious people which is not the intent. The intent, as you observe, is to state that relying on a book as a standard is no less flexible than a personal standard and is actually identical as each will interpret it in their own way and hence act based on their own standard..not an absolute.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by John, posted 09-13-2002 10:37 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Tokyojim, posted 10-08-2002 10:08 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 93 of 142 (17671)
09-18-2002 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Mammuthus
09-13-2002 7:23 AM


chirp..chirp...chirp....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 7:23 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 8:36 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 142 (17673)
09-18-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Mammuthus
09-18-2002 8:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
chirp..chirp...chirp....

I'm just waiting for TJ to come back...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 8:11 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 8:45 AM Quetzal has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 95 of 142 (17674)
09-18-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Quetzal
09-18-2002 8:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
chirp..chirp...chirp....

I'm just waiting for TJ to come back...


***********************+

While you are waiting, there is a much more viscious fundie in the bible innaccuracy inerrancy forum who calls himself Wordswordman...he makes TJ look like a Unitarian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 8:36 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 11:50 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 142 (17688)
09-18-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mammuthus
09-18-2002 8:45 AM


True enough. However, I find it quite laborious and ultimately frustrating to wade through his posts. So far, he hasn't posted a single verifiable fact, beyond the spurious "Wistar refutes evolution" chestnut. Even there, considering his "technical creationist website" is limited to Pathlights - justifiably famous as one of the worst examples of quote mining, mis-representation, and distortion on the 'net - I don't see much point.

Sorry Mammuthus - if he ever posts something intelligible, I'll be happy to join in. In the meantime, pass the popcorn...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 8:45 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 12:56 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 97 of 142 (17704)
09-18-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Quetzal
09-18-2002 11:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
True enough. However, I find it quite laborious and ultimately frustrating to wade through his posts. So far, he hasn't posted a single verifiable fact, beyond the spurious "Wistar refutes evolution" chestnut. Even there, considering his "technical creationist website" is limited to Pathlights - justifiably famous as one of the worst examples of quote mining, mis-representation, and distortion on the 'net - I don't see much point.

Sorry Mammuthus - if he ever posts something intelligible, I'll be happy to join in. In the meantime, pass the popcorn...


***************************+

It is kind of interesting though to watch the mind of an insane person at work...I would not hold my breathe that he says anything intelligible...one of his last posts yesterday was a threat to stalk nos482 across the forums.

What I find interesting is that even though he is far nastier and irrational than just about any other creationist on this site...his arguments don't differ significantly.

Cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 11:50 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 142 (19308)
10-08-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mammuthus
09-13-2002 10:44 AM


Hey guys, wake up. I'm back. Got my computer back and Friday and haven't been able to get to the board since. I won't be as regular as before, but I'll try and hang in there for a while. I have to get back with Quetzal soon, but for now let me respond to John and Mammethus in this post:

JOHN says:
Plenty of religious people have great personal standards, but wasn't the point that due to the fact that books must be interpretted the claim to absolute moral standards is false?

MAMMUTHUSsays:
I stand corrected...I re-read my sentence and it sounded like a sweeping condemnation of all religious people which is not the intent. The intent, as you observe, is to state that relying on a book as a standard is no less flexible than a personal standard and is actually identical as each will interpret it in their own way and hence act based on their own standard..not an absolute.


[Replaced fixed width line of "^" with <hr>. --Admin]

TJ replies:
Guys, I respectfully choose to disagree with you. Just because we sinners who have a natural bent to justify sin may never totally be able to agree on the moral code down to the letter does not mean that an absolute standard does not exist. Tax accountants disagree on the interpretation of the tax code, but that doesn not mean that an absolute standard does not exist. Besides, the areas of disagreement would end up being fairly few I would imagine. Most of what the Bible says about morality is pretty black and white. Thou shalt not kill.Eis pretty black and white to me. In other words, murder is wrong in an absolute sense. How that applies to war is another matter. Here we have different interpretations. There are pacifists and those who believe in just wars. Perhaps here there is room for not being dogmatic. But the fact that not all Christians agree does not mean that in Gods eyes either position is OK. Obviously both cannot be right. It is not wrong to choose the position you believe to be right. In fact that is what we should do. Now to state dogmatically on this issue that your view is absolute truth would be playing God like Mammethus always accuses me of. Anyway, whatever position we choose on the matter, we must do so with a clean conscience and with the realization that we are accountable to God for our actions and even our interpretations of Scripture.
Thou shalt not steal, bear false witness, covet, commit adultery, etc. is pretty black and white to me. You shall have no other gods besides Me.Eis pretty clear to even first graders I would think. I could list a whole bunch of very clear moral statements and principles. This is what I am talking about.
Mammethus, you or was it John who said it, anyway, someone said relying on a book as a standard is no less flexible than a personal standard and is actually identical as each will interpret it in their own way and hence act based on their own standard..not an absolute.
No doubt there will be slightly differeing interpretations of what is permissable and not permissable in Christianity. Even God allows for this on some issues such as the eating of meat that was first offered to idols. In this case, we are commanded to follow our conscience. So if my conscience permits me to eat and someone elses conscience condemns them then they should not eat. So I will not say that every action is listed in the absolute moral code, however what is absolute are the moral principles that we use to apply to the actions that are in the gray areas. There are many black and white issues though and they are non-negotiable. I do not agree that just because various people may have slightly differing interpretations, that there is not one true interpetation. Do not see the logic of that.
For the sake of argument, let's stick just to the very basics, the clear Biblical commands and others that aren't so controversial. But even if we stick to that, you won't admit to an absolute moral code. Let's admit. We're both prejudiced.
Just because some weirdos twist Scripture and try to use the Bible to prove their own personal convictions does not mean there is no absolute moral standard that God will hold us accountable to. Nice try but that argument doesnt work. Even if it cannot be worked out to the letter or only agreed on in a general way, still it is absolute and applicable to all cultures. And that is what is important! Or even if we cant know it as you claim EI disagree Ethe fact that one still exists is what is important. Why? It means that we are accountable for our actions and we had better try our best to honestly discern what God is saying to us through the Word because He will judge us by His standards.

Plus the Bible CLAIMS to speak authoritatively which is a very important point. And it does so based on the fact that it is revelation from above rather than personal opinion of man. The Creator who is over and above mankind gives us His standards in the Bible and whether a person chooses to believe it or not makes no difference. It is still the standard by which all our lives will be judged when we appear before God.(This is what the Bible claims and I believe it.)
Now, if there really is a God, that sounds like a very reasonable thing for Him to say, dont you think? It doesnt prove the Bible is the Word of God, but it lends support to that idea.
You gotta remember here that we humans dont naturally want there to be a God over us. We want to be supreme and free to live our lives however we want. So we are biased in our thinking from the beginning. I know this is a stretch, but humor me here. Would it be wrong for me to assume that even if you became convinced of GOd's existence and the truth of the Bible that you still would not follow God? The only way you guys can live with yourselves and not believe in God is to say there is no god. If you can convince yourselves of that, then you do not have to worry about sin, and can freely ignore whatever the Bible says that you do not like. Not only are we humans naturally bias on this issue, but we are also blinded by our sin nature from the beginning.(Romans 8:5-8, I Cor. 2:14) Even Adam and Eve did not want to admit responsibility for their sin when it was so clear. The first thing Adam did was to blame God and Eve. Eve proceeded to blame the serpent. We all try and defend ourselves and justify ourselves, but when it comes to sin in the eyes of a holy God, this is a dangerous game. Even if a person can convince himself that he is not a sinner and thinks he has won the game and beaten his conscience, in the end he has lost big time. God will never be convinced.
No, there is an absolute code of morality that God reveals to us in Scripture and we are all accountable to it whether we recognize it as existing or deny that it exists. If there were no absolute moral code, if God had not impressed his moral laws on our hearts, made us in His image, and given us a conscience, where would this world be today? We might have destroyed ourselves already.

[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 09-13-2002 10:44 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2002 12:14 PM Tokyojim has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 142 (19317)
10-08-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 5:36 AM


Tokyojim says:
You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this, but believe me they are organized and they have an agenda. Read the Humanist Magazine if you donft believe me. Herefs one quote from there:
***********************************************

I have no reason to beleive you on this because you have shown absolutely no knowledge about other worldviews beyond your own personal beliefs. And by the way, your relgion has its own rather nasty agenda i.e. forced theocracy.

*************************************************************

Mammethus, I'm not trying to force God on anybody. It is impossible to do. Even if I point a gun at someone and get a confession out of them, it doesn't make them a Christian. So, sorry, "My religion" does not have such an agenda. Jesus did tell us to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Yes, I would like as many people as possible to find joy and forgiveness and life in Jesus and meaning in this life. But I would never think of forcing it on anybody. I guess some have tried the forceful thing in the past - like Charlemagne, but what a ridiculous effort!
*******************

Citation of Tokyojim's:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.

>I for one find this part of the paragraph to be bullshit much like you do I guess.

TJ continues:
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p.

> This guy is over the top...your point..that all atheists agree with this? You must be truly incapable of logical thought if that is the case.<
*****************************************
TJ's reply:
Nice jab! I'll ignore it. I'm actually relieved that you disagree with your fellow atheists. But, Mammethus, the point is that some atheists actually believe this stuff and have an agenda. And how are we to know who is right? How are we to know that this opinion is actually bull- like you said? Are these guys right or are you right? How do we measure? Aren't all opinions equally valid? So in response to these people, what can you say besides what you said?! It is each to his own in your worldview so neither can be considered superior or better than the other can it? Aren't you being a little bigoted and arrogant there in calling that view bullshit? It almost sounds like you believe that your own beliefs are right. Come on. Show a little tolerance here! After all, they are on your side.
***********************************

TJ's previous post continued:
Herefs another one from the now deceased Madelyn Murray OfHair: "The atheist realizes that there must not only be an acceptance of his right to hold his opinion,

Mammethus: Do you disagree with this statement jim?

TJ says:
No, of course not. Did I ever say differently? I just think you are wrong as you think I am wrong.
*************************************8

Jim says:
So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.

I say:
"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others.

TJ replies:
Oh, I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood your last sentence. For a minute there I thought you were trying to dictate your worldview to me. But isn't that exactly what are you doing in that last statement? Are you allowed to dictate your belief to me that you just stated above: "but you have no right to dictate them to others." In other words, I can't dictate my views, but you can yours. Nice try.

*************************************8

Mammethus continues:
You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality.

My response: And you have a truly annoying tendancy to put words in my mouth. I never said you agreed with these guys. In fact, I need to question your ability to read. Did I or did I not preface this whole thing with the following words: "You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this,..." I vaguely recall writing that, but in spite of that, you blast me. You make meaningful dialog difficult when you either don't read, don't notice, or blatantly ignore what I write.
You wanted justification for what I was saying and I gave it to you. The quotes simply show that the leaders of the atheistic humanist movement do have a scary agenda. They are seeking to rally their fellow atheists to their cause. You have not been persuaded yet for which I am thankful!

Cheers,
Mammuthus[/B][/QUOTE]

CHEERS, TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:36 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by joz, posted 10-09-2002 12:55 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 4:38 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 7:54 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 100 of 142 (19328)
10-08-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Tokyojim
10-08-2002 10:08 AM


Hi TJ - Welcome back. I'm glad you got your computer fixed. IIRC, we were still working on your reply to my Post 48. You'd finished with the first paragraph, and were going to continue from there (your message Post 70. I didn't answer that one, 'cause I was waiting for you to sort of catch up. Post 48 has a lot of meat in it. Looking forward to continuing our conversation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Tokyojim, posted 10-08-2002 10:08 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Tokyojim, posted 10-09-2002 9:59 AM Quetzal has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 142 (19358)
10-09-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tokyojim
10-08-2002 10:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
The quotes simply show that the leaders of the atheistic humanist movement do have a scary agenda.

Why is it any scarier than the missionary work that you do.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tokyojim, posted 10-08-2002 10:59 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 102 of 142 (19370)
10-09-2002 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tokyojim
10-08-2002 10:59 AM


Hi TJ,
Great to have you back. I know what you mean about time constraints and posting on the board. I am up to my neck in work right now as well...but I will try to get to your post today or tomorrow.

Best wishes,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tokyojim, posted 10-08-2002 10:59 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 103 of 142 (19378)
10-09-2002 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tokyojim
10-08-2002 10:59 AM


Ok, I have some time to answer your post.

Mammethus, I'm not trying to force God on anybody. It is impossible to do. Even if I point a gun at someone and get a confession out of them, it doesn't make them a Christian. So, sorry, "My religion" does not have such an agenda. Jesus did tell us to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Yes, I would like as many people as possible to find joy and forgiveness and life in Jesus and meaning in this life. But I would never think of forcing it on anybody. I guess some have tried the forceful thing in the past - like Charlemagne, but what a ridiculous effort!
*******************

Don't forget the crusades or religious fanatics involved in hate crimes...forced religion (not just christianity) is practiced today as much as at any other time in history.

Out of curiousity, where do you draw the line between spreading the gospel as you say and harrassment? Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads.
-----------------------

*****************************************
TJ's reply:
Nice jab! I'll ignore it. I'm actually relieved that you disagree with your fellow atheists. But, Mammethus, the point is that some atheists actually believe this stuff and have an agenda. And how are we to know who is right? How are we to know that this opinion is actually bull- like you said? Are these guys right or are you right? How do we measure? Aren't all opinions equally valid?
************************
You answered your own question with the last sentence. The statement you quoted disallows other opinions i.e. much like fundamentalism. I find that niether valid nor practical as history has shown that trying to force people to subscribe to a belief or political system (operative word being force) ultimately fails. Use your own religion as an example, why are there so many different sects with extremely different views even though the catholic church with much greater power at the time attempted to force christiantiy on the world?
--------------------------

So in response to these people, what can you say besides what you said?! It is each to his own in your worldview so neither can be considered superior or better than the other can it? Aren't you being a little bigoted and arrogant there in calling that view bullshit? It almost sounds like you believe that your own beliefs are right. Come on. Show a little tolerance here! After all, they are on your side.
***********************************
You appear to be getting desparate TJ...my side? Really. You have made it clear from your first post that you are not capable of comprehending any other "side" than your own personal worldview. If you wish to meet a kindred spririt go to Bible Inaccuraccy or Inerrancy and look for a poster called Wordswordsman...he has this same problem.

I of course believe that my positions are correct..your point being? You believe yours are correct though we do not share much in common in our worldviews. Both of us are constrained by our own worldviews and the law...I don't see us shooting at each other with guns...seems to work for most people...except those who kill or abuse others to force their religions on others.
------------------

Jim says:
So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.

I say:
"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others.

TJ replies:
Oh, I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood your last sentence. For a minute there I thought you were trying to dictate your worldview to me. But isn't that exactly what are you doing in that last statement? Are you allowed to dictate your belief to me that you just stated above: "but you have no right to dictate them to others." In other words, I can't dictate my views, but you can yours. Nice try.
*************************************
Then you are being willfully obtuse. I stated you have the right to your beliefs I have mine. YOU have not rebutted my point that you are unable to engage me in debate unless you place my worldview in the constraint of a definition that does not apply. You always quote from sources other than myself and then attempt to claim that this is my position i.e. strawman arguement. You then increase this shame by falsely claiming that I am dictating my worldview to you. I suggest you engage me in debate or concede that you cannot. If you want to engage in a debate on secular humanists or want to know what other atheists actually think I would propose you start a thread here on those topics.
---------------------

Mammethus continues:
You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality.

My response: And you have a truly annoying tendancy to put words in my mouth.
*********************

LOL! Pot calling the kettle black.

I never said you agreed with these guys. In fact, I need to question your ability to read.
********************+
Then I question your need to post such distractions into the conversation unless it was your intent to link me to them.

Did I or did I not preface this whole thing with the following words: "You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this,..." I vaguely recall writing that, but in spite of that, you blast me. You make meaningful dialog difficult when you either don't read, don't notice, or blatantly ignore what I write.
***************************+
Ditto

You wanted justification for what I was saying and I gave it to you. The quotes simply show that the leaders of the atheistic humanist movement do have a scary agenda. They are seeking to rally their fellow atheists to their cause. You have not been persuaded yet for which I am thankful!
******************************

You are very sadly misinformed if you think that all athiests subscribe to one worldview or are actually an organization. That is like saying all christians are southern baptists. The only thing that links atheists is that we do not believe in god/gods/supreme beings etc. Your fear of a giant conspiracy would be better directed at the religious sects that forcibly indoctrinate, kill, and otherwise harrass individuals in order to establish power over them....i.e. the "scary agenda" of many missionaries.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tokyojim, posted 10-08-2002 10:59 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Tokyojim, posted 10-09-2002 9:54 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 142 (19385)
10-09-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Mammuthus
10-09-2002 7:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Ok, I have some time to answer your post.

TJ's first post: Mammethus, I'm not trying to force God on anybody. It is impossible to do. Even if I point a gun at someone and get a confession out of them, it doesn't make them a Christian. So, sorry, "My religion" does not have such an agenda. Jesus did tell us to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Yes, I would like as many people as possible to find joy and forgiveness and life in Jesus and meaning in this life. But I would never think of forcing it on anybody. I guess some have tried the forceful thing in the past - like Charlemagne, but what a ridiculous effort!
*******************

Don't forget the crusades or religious fanatics involved in hate crimes...forced religion (not just christianity) is practiced today as much as at any other time in history.

TJ replies: Yes, especially in Muslim lands and I am against that. Religion must be free. Forced religion has no meaning because you can't make anybody actually believe something from their heart.
I am not aware of any Christians who are forcing religion on others at this point, all though I'm sure you will find some for me.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Out of curiousity, where do you draw the line between spreading the gospel as you say and harrassment? Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads.


TJ replies:
Let me tell you what we do here in Japan. We give out tracts, have Bible studies for those who show an interest and seek to share with people through normal life and conversation about the difference Jesus has made in our lives. Many people are hurting and the god-shaped vacuum in their heart is empty and crying out for fulfillment. They haven't found fulfillment in their life so far and some are ready to consider the question of God's existence and the answers the Bible has to offer. I could quote the testimonies of numerous Japanese who came to believe in Jesus and have been greatly helped. I will only baptize someone who of their own free will comes to me and says they have believed in Jesus. Then we do some studies together to make sure they really do understand what it means to be a Christian. Then if they still want to get baptized, we allow them. I don't quite see how we force religion on anyone.

Mammuthus continues: Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads.

I don't call teaching children about Jesus force. I call it education. And the Bible tells us that as parents we have a responsibility to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If I believe the Bible is true, I certainly want them to find the same joy and fulfillment I have in Jesus. We teach our children to pray, seek God's help, obey Him, and we read the Bible together. I will die for the right to teach my kids the truth. Now you may say I am forcing my religion on them. No, I am teaching them and I hope that when they are old enough to make a decision on their own that they too will choose to follow Jesus. I cannot make that decision for them though. THey must do that for themselves.
And don't tell me that you don't teach your kids anything. By the very life you live, you are teaching your kids. They know that Daddy doesn't believe in God and that he is rather vocal about it. They know that Daddy doesn't want them to believe in God. Forgive me, I'm assuming that to be the case. I'm assuming you don't want them to believe in a fairy tale. So you are teaching your kids as well. Don't you teach your kids the fact that "God does not exist"? Even if you don't say it in those words, you are teaching that to them. It is unavoidable. We teach by example, by what we say, by our attitudes, and by what we believe.

TJ's quote:
Nice jab! I'll ignore it. I'm actually relieved that you disagree with your fellow atheists. But, Mammethus, the point is that some atheists actually believe this stuff and have an agenda. And how are we to know who is right? How are we to know that this opinion is actually bull- like you said? Are these guys right or are you right? How do we measure? Aren't all opinions equally valid?
************************
You answered your own question with the last sentence. The statement you quoted disallows other opinions i.e. much like fundamentalism. I find that niether valid nor practical as history has shown that trying to force people to subscribe to a belief or political system (operative word being force) ultimately fails. Use your own religion as an example, why are there so many different sects with extremely different views even though the catholic church with much greater power at the time attempted to force christiantiy on the world?

--------------------------

TJ's reply: I should have said "Aren't all opinions equally valid in the atheistic worldview?" They are not equally valid in my worldview. And to tell the truth, I don't think you really think that all opinions are equally valid. That is one reason why you so vehemently disagree with me. I didn't answer my own question. Besides, even you don't believe that all opinions are equally valid because you are debating with me. You have said that you disagree with Hitler. You have said that you disagree with some of your fellow atheists on their views on spreading atheism. Obviously not all opinions are equal. But the problem is, you have no standard by which to evaluate the different views that atheists have except your own particular ideas. So these atheists are only wrong in your little opinion in the end.

"The statement you quoted" in the above response refers to what statement of mine? Sorry, I didn't follow that.

I agree that the Catholic Church has made some grave mistakes in the past. That is why the Protestant Reformation took place. But even among Protestant Churches there are a lot of different views mostly on periferal issues. Some people hold these issues to be very important and start their own little group. It is definitely not a good thing. It shows that Christians are human and susceptible to sin just like everyone else. However there is a lot of fellowship and cooperation that goes on between churches(not all churches) and we have learned to respect each other's right to hold differing views while still maintaining our own distinctives. Yes, debate still takes place, but that is a healthy thing as it causes us all to re-examine our own beliefs and defend them and hopefully learn through it all.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TJ's post continued: So in response to these people, what can you say besides what you said?! It is each to his own in your worldview so neither can be considered superior or better than the other can it? Aren't you being a little bigoted and arrogant there in calling that view bullshit? It almost sounds like you believe that your own beliefs are right. Come on. Show a little tolerance here! After all, they are on your side.
***********************************

You appear to be getting desparate TJ...my side? Really. You have made it clear from your first post that you are not capable of comprehending any other "side" than your own personal worldview. If you wish to meet a kindred spririt go to Bible Inaccuraccy or Inerrancy and look for a poster called Wordswordsman...he has this same problem.

TJ replies:
Not sure why I appear desparate here. When I said on your side, I meant that they are fellow atheists and in that sense they stand with you against my views. Can you please enlighten me on the distinctives of your personal worldview? I keep getting reprimanded for not knowing, but you prefer to keep me in the dark it seems. I'm assuming you are an atheist. Doesn't that mean that humans are supreme? Doesn't that mean that there is no moral absolute to appeal to? I don't think you are a naturalist since you admit to the existence of a conscience, so it seems you do believe that life is more than just an existing form of protein (arranged amino acids made up of hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen). You believe that not only material things exist it would seem - ie. conscience. However, I think you do not believe in life after death or the existence of some spirit in the body that continues to exist after death. If you are an atheist, then there are certain fundamental co-existing beliefs that go along with that position. Where have I mis-judged you? So you don't have a missionary spirit like some atheists so you say.

Mammuthus continues:
I of course believe that my positions are correct..your point being? You believe yours are correct though we do not share much in common in our worldviews. Both of us are constrained by our own worldviews and the law...I don't see us shooting at each other with guns...seems to work for most people...except those who kill or abuse others to force their religions on others.
------------------

TJ REPLIES: My point being that we are both bigots because we both think we are right. You can't label only me a bigot if you are going to say that you think your views are right too. And if you don't think your views are right, then they are obviously meaningless.

Jim says:
So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.

I say:
"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others.

TJ replies:
Oh, I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood your last sentence. For a minute there I thought you were trying to dictate your worldview to me. But isn't that exactly what you told me that I can't do in that last statement? Are you allowed to dictate your belief to me that you just stated above: "but you have no right to dictate them to others." In other words, I can't dictate my views, but you can yours. Nice try.
*************************************

Then you are being willfully obtuse. I stated you have the right to your beliefs I have mine. YOU have not rebutted my point that you are unable to engage me in debate unless you place my worldview in the constraint of a definition that does not apply. You always quote from sources other than myself and then attempt to claim that this is my position i.e. strawman arguement. You then increase this shame by falsely claiming that I am dictating my worldview to you. I suggest you engage me in debate or concede that you cannot. If you want to engage in a debate on secular humanists or want to know what other atheists actually think I would propose you start a thread here on those topics.
---------------------

TJ REPLIES: Mammuthus, you said this: "I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others." But in stating this opinion of yours to me you are dictating your beliefs to me - which is what you just said is not permissable to do. So the statement is meaningless. I'm just pointing out a flaw in your argument. If you say I have no right to dictate my beliefs to others, how am I supposed to respond to that statement that you just made. It is a logical fallacy. Sorry, I admit I was being a bit sarcastic there.

Mammethus continues:
You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality.

My response: And you have a truly annoying tendancy to put words in my mouth.
*********************

LOL! Pot calling the kettle black.

I never said you agreed with these guys. In fact, I need to question your ability to read.
********************+
Then I question your need to post such distractions into the conversation unless it was your intent to link me to them.

TJ: Did I or did I not preface this whole thing with the following words: "You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this,..." I vaguely recall writing that, but in spite of that, you blast me. You make meaningful dialog difficult when you either don't read, don't notice, or blatantly ignore what I write.
***************************+
Ditto

TJ replies: Goodness me. THis is ridiculous. Give me a break here Mammuthus. It seems you have an inability to admit when you make a mistake. I clearly prefaced my statement in a way that I was not accusing you of agreeing, but wanted you to know about what the leaders of the atheist movement in the States are thinking since you didn't seem to be aware of it.
You wanted justification for what I was saying and I gave it to you. THen you accuse me of saying I'm assuming all atheists are the same, when I just said I didn't believe that. And in your next statement you continue harping on this theme. I give up. How clear do I need to make myself?
******************************

You are very sadly misinformed if you think that all athiests subscribe to one worldview or are actually an organization. That is like saying all christians are southern baptists. The only thing that links atheists is that we do not believe in god/gods/supreme beings etc. Your fear of a giant conspiracy would be better directed at the religious sects that forcibly indoctrinate, kill, and otherwise harrass individuals in order to establish power over them....i.e. the "scary agenda" of many missionaries.

TJ replies: By the way, how many other people in the world hold the same worldview that you do? ( I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what that is yet, it would seem.) And why should we think that your own particular worldview is right? What makes you think that it is right? At least my worldview is not something that I have dreamed up on my own. It is shared with many other Christians who believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Arrogant or not, I believe in the Bible because I believe it is God's revelation to man.

Cheers,
Mammuthus

Cheers,
Jim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 7:54 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 142 (19388)
10-09-2002 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
10-08-2002 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi TJ - Welcome back. I'm glad you got your computer fixed. IIRC, we were still working on your reply to my You'd finished with the first paragraph, and were going to continue from there (your message I didn't answer that one, 'cause I was waiting for you to sort of catch up. Post 48 has a lot of meat in it. Looking forward to continuing our conversation.

Quetzal, yes, let's slowly work through that. It will take a while I'm sure. The computer thing was very frustrating. I still have to send it back in for a few days when a certain part comes in, but for now it is usable. Actually, I'd like to start a new thread for this topic. Our posts are lost in the pile and it is confusing. I have worked on your post a bit in the meantime. I still have a few things to talk about with Mammuthus yet. Do you mind if try and finish things with him first? Hopefully it won't take too long.

Regards,
TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2002 12:14 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Quetzal, posted 10-09-2002 10:50 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019