My New Toy!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri May 04, 2007 3:15 pm

KingAl wrote:There are, however, no specific prejudices linked with atheism e.g. anti-gay, nor is their an atheist doctrine that extolls the persecution of non-atheists. Atheism is cannot be used to justify an otherwise unjustifiable prejudice. Persecution via atheism is simply on the basis of persecuting non-atheists - which is possible based on any feature or difference between people.


There is nothing about theism that extols the persecution of non-theists either. There are theists movements that do so, but there are also atheists movements that do so.


KingAl wrote:They shouldn't be defined by their reservations any more than you should be defined based on, say, your skepticism regarding the aerodynamics of pigs. Also, as above, atheists and agnostics do not have a set of superstitions, values etc. that go hand in hand with the label.


The same could be said of agnostic theists.
User avatar
wwarnick
level5
level5
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Rexburg, ID

Postby wwarnick » Fri May 04, 2007 8:47 pm

Trident wrote:I also don't feel a need to join a club to prove i have faith in something. Thats what a religion is isn't it? "I have faith" "oh yeah, me too" "ok, cool, lets join a church club!" not even Jesus did that.

Just because there was no church building doesn't mean it wasn't a religion. In fact, it depends on how you define religion. A religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, in which case Jesus most certainly "did that".

wwarnick
User avatar
wwarnick
level5
level5
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Rexburg, ID

Postby wwarnick » Fri May 04, 2007 8:49 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:No, that's "churchianity". (in the context of Christianity).

I've never heard that term, but I like it.

wwarnick
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Fri May 04, 2007 9:04 pm

wwarnick wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:No, that's "churchianity". (in the context of Christianity).

I've never heard that term, but I like it.

wwarnick


Seconded! Now that I think about it, I have a lot of Churchian friends.
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Fri May 04, 2007 10:38 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
KingAl wrote:There are, however, no specific prejudices linked with atheism e.g. anti-gay, nor is their an atheist doctrine that extols the persecution of non-atheists. Atheism cannot be used to justify an otherwise unjustifiable prejudice. Persecution via atheism is simply on the basis of persecuting non-atheists - which is possible based on any feature or difference between people.


There is nothing about theism that extols the persecution of non-theists either. There are theists movements that do so, but there are also atheists movements that do so.

In and of itself, atheism has no superstitions etc. There is no atheist 'establishment'. The beliefs of atheist groups are as related to atheism as interest in handball is to theism. This is not equally the case for theism, because the teachings and sacred texts are there to be interpreted or misinterpreted. A Christian could use Leviticus 18:22 i.e."Thou shalt not lie with ye male as one lieth with a woman: for it is abomination." to justify hatred and persecution of homosexuals, or it could sway them either way. There is no equivalent for atheism.
EDIT: Of course, for pure theism, unrelated to established religions, this is also true. However, insofar as atheism rejects a higher being, it also rejects a 'right' belief established by said being. The beliefs of atheists are down to their own moral codes.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
KingAl wrote:They shouldn't be defined by their reservations any more than you should be defined based on, say, your skepticism regarding the aerodynamics of pigs. Also, as above, atheists and agnostics do not have a set of superstitions, values etc. that go hand in hand with the label.


The same could be said of agnostic theists.


Oh, certainly. My point is rather that people who approach atheism based on logic are distinct from those who take it as a given like any other religion.
Last edited by KingAl on Sat May 05, 2007 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri May 04, 2007 10:47 pm

KingAl wrote:In and of itself, atheism has no superstitions etc. There is no atheist 'establishment'. The beliefs of atheist groups are as related to atheism as interest in handball is to theism. This is not equally the case for theism, because the teachings and sacred texts are there to be interpreted or misinterpreted. A Christian could use Leviticus 18:22 i.e."Thou shalt not lie with ye male as one lieth with a woman: for it is abomination." to justify hatred and persecution of homosexuals, or it could sway them either way. There is no equivalent for atheism.
EDIT: Of course, for pure theism, unrelated to established religions, this is also true. However, insofar as atheism rejects a higher being, it also rejects a 'right' belief established by said being. The beliefs of atheists is down to their own moral codes.


Sacred texts are products of theist movements, not theism itself. Communism has it's little Red Book, the Communist Manifesto, etc.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Oh, certainly. My point is rather that people who approach atheism based on logic are distinct from those who take it as a given like any other religion.


Certainly true.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Fri May 04, 2007 10:49 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Sacred texts are products of theist movements, not theism itself. Communism has it's little Red Book, the Communist Manifesto, etc.


Hence my edit ;)

EDIT: Geez, I just noticed how sloppy my grammar has been. "nor is their a", "extolls", "beliefs of atheists is"!? I shake my head in shame.
User avatar
Trident
level2
level2
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Trident » Sat May 05, 2007 2:08 am

I'm defiantly going to have to see this documentary...
Jesus_Camp_Trailer


WOW! unreal! these people's views on others is down right twisted! I personally have heard Christians speak about mass murder and nuking of the Muslims, pure hatred towards that which they don't understand. is that what Jesus would do? Well it doesn't really matter because this religion isn't even about Christ anymore, they've changed it to fit there own twisted narrow-minded view of the world and there teaching that same hatred to there youth. I've watched movies and documentarys about Jesus and the only word i could use to describe him is love. That is living in Christ's image, these people are not.


I think i once heard something about Satan being deceptive and posing as the last one you'd expect, hmmm...

wwarnick wrote:Just because there was no church building doesn't mean it wasn't a religion. In fact, it depends on how you define religion. A religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, in which case Jesus most certainly "did that".

wwarnick


Thats not really what i was saying but thats True, there was no building, but there was also no christanity untill several hundred years after the death of Christ. Jesus claimed to be the messiah of the Jews, and although he evoked many new ideas, he did not mean to create his own religion.

::EDIT::
I think i found the whole documentary...
JESUS_CAMP
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat May 05, 2007 2:35 am

Trident wrote:
Thats not really what i was saying but thats True, there was no building, but there was also no christanity untill several hundred years after the death of Christ. Jesus claimed to be the messiah of the Jews, and although he evoked many new ideas, he did not mean to create his own religion.



There seems to be two main points to this paragraph, so I will respond to both.

1) Christianity certainly did before and after Christ's death. Paul wrote in numerous epistles about how various Church's (each located in a different city) were changing, or forsaking the original teachings they had learned. This was the whole point of his epistles, to either correct false teachings or to urge continued faith the true teachings. Even a superficial reading of the New Testament makes this quite clear (mainly at the very beginning and very end of the epistle).

2) I would again disagree with you there. He specifically told people to "follow me" which, while teaching that He fulfilled the law, and also gave new commandments. He set up a system of Apostles to share his message, and built it such that it could be perpetuated after His death and the death of the original twelve (the evidence of this is the calling of Mathias in the beginning of the Book of Acts).

In short, I completely disagree with absolutely everything in that paragraph.
User avatar
Trident
level2
level2
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Trident » Sat May 05, 2007 3:39 am

You seem to know more about the topic than i do so i'll take your word for it but, he did claim to be the messiah of the jews did he not?
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat May 05, 2007 3:46 am

Trident wrote:You seem to know more about the topic than i do so i'll take your word for it but, he did claim to be the messiah of the jews did he not?


Yes, He did indeed.
User avatar
Trident
level2
level2
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Trident » Sat May 05, 2007 8:17 am

I would just like to state that i have the utmost respect for Jesus Christ, I just do not like Christians at all. I think they have lost there way and forgotten what he was all about. Although I do believe in Christ I could never be a Christian because although I do believe in him, I do not agree with them. There interpretations of him have seriously strayed.

To roughly quote the Tao Te Ching...
What man could properly explain that which is undefinable? The universe was born before the time of words, any words used to define the undefinable unnameable source would not be complete.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Sat May 05, 2007 9:55 am

Trident wrote:I would just like to state that i have the utmost respect for Jesus Christ, I just do not like Christians at all. .


A bit of a blanket statement, isn't it? Surely some Christians are tolerable!
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Sat May 05, 2007 10:49 am

Certain Christians (with initials, shall we say, GWB) let the side down for the majority of Christians, who are of course just regular human beings. Being Christian doesn't make people automatically turn into assholes, although I have met a few who are.

For example, I was in one of the canteens at my university, and I was approached by a friend of mine and his friend, who are both devout Christians. I was sitting with one of my best friends (who is a Hindu) and they were asking us some questions about our views pertaining to God and Jesus, promoting a series of talks and lectures that were going on at the time. This I had no beef with, I quite enjoyed the majority of it. But then my friend was describing a very spiritual experience she had while in India, visiting a modern-day prophet; I forget the details, but he clearly had a large impact on her life and she was being very serious. Then one of the guys (not my friend, but the other one) actually said, "Pft, well there's a big difference between some guy doing tricks in India and Jesus." Needless to say, she was pretty damn offended by this.

What the Christian was clearly too idiotic to realise is that to my friend, the Swami she went to see was the real deal, and Jesus was the "some guy doing tricks", but the problem with debating religion is that it is pretty much impossible to rationalise with someone who truly believes in something that you truly don't. They will not accept your ideas, because to their mind you are utterly wrong, and to your mind, they are utterly wrong.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat May 05, 2007 11:05 pm

Trident wrote:To roughly quote the Tao Te Ching...
What man could properly explain that which is undefinable? The universe was born before the time of words, any words used to define the undefinable unnameable source would not be complete.


That is based upon the assumption that the universe was born before "the time of words" and that God is "undefinable" and "unnameable". I would contend that he was operating under a different understanding of things then what I do, and that due to no fault of his own, he is mistaken in each of those three points due to a lack of information.

But that's me. :wink:

shinygerbil wrote:
What the Christian was clearly too idiotic to realise is that to my friend, the Swami she went to see was the real deal, and Jesus was the "some guy doing tricks", but the problem with debating religion is that it is pretty much impossible to rationalise with someone who truly believes in something that you truly don't. They will not accept your ideas, because to their mind you are utterly wrong, and to your mind, they are utterly wrong.


That is why I asked for maturity and respect in an earlier reply. Regardless of what one believes, one should realize that someone else's belief is a very special and sacred thing to them. I would hope that the person made the comment trying to be light and funny without realizing how hurtful it came across, it would be a shame to think they intentionally meant to offend.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests