| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2013 12:34:25 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Oh really? Loving god? You're sure about that? ;)
Atheists are clear on one point: We are on our own, one life, one chance. The critical bit here is that we're not going to gouge each others eyes out over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or other useless bits. We're far more concerned with reality, and I think that's the salient point for me. |
Ah! We are coming to the crux of it now! (no pun intended and probably none understood either :) )
You judge all (or most) religious people based on the actions of the Westboro Bozos, Saturday Morning Televangelists, and pedophiles that usurped the priesthood. This would be like me saying the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, Mao, Stalin etc were the results of their Atheism. Both statements are just plain wrong. When I was an Atheist I frankly didn't give a damn about reality. Atheists are no more unified in their vision of reality than the religious are.
In my opinion, and I truly mean no offense, the crux of the problem is people on both sides that feel they need to "hold the line"... I say screw the line... It ain't actually a "line" with two sides anyway... At best it's an infinite amount of random scribbling with everyone standing behind their own patch of it certain they are right.
The truly religious agree on one thing... That we don't know the nature of God and won't until God explains it to us after we've died. |
Hmm.. I don't think you've quite got the right handle on how I view religions. I do quite realize that the more vocal among your lot aren't very good representatives, don't worry about that - nobody really takes them seriously anyway, they're entertainers for the most part (or lawyers in the case of WBBC)..
As for what I do base it on, is the constant, subtle pressures that religion exerts upon everyone, every day - in this country, especially here in Old New Mexico (this is a very old Spanish area, lots of Catholicism of the Latin sort.)
I don't mean to offend either, but I've always cared about reality VERY much, you say that while you were an Atheist, you found that eventually you didn't care about reality - I don't know if that can be true - or perhaps you just don't care about reality at all? Perhaps this is a good indication of why you went back to religion? Honestly, no intent here to offend, at all. Just curious if maybe there is something in this statement? Can you maybe tell me how you think this affected your decision to return to religion? Do you think perhaps you were never really an Atheist at all, but perhaps just angry with the church, or God, or whatever?
There's no denying what is preached every day, at tens of thousands of pulpits - if your leaders didn't pretend to know the nature of God, then what advice could they really offer on spiritual matters? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:35:08 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is there any reason to feel these conflicts are caused because the people are religious and not because the people are people (ie. this is the way people are). |
Absolutely. Even if you you think the Crusades might have additional justifications, Christianity itself would never have risen beyond cult status if not for Roman emperors killing off those with competing beliefs. More recently, millions have died in Africa as a direct result of the Vatican's religious stance against condoms, millions have died in Ireland and the Middle East as a direct result of religious differences, heretics and witches killed, gays bashed, and honor killings all justified in the direct name of religion. This list is very long indeed.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At this point "atheism" becomes the ephemeral ghost where nothing can be laid at its door because it isn't a "creed" |
Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 12:35:58. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:37:03 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"Viability" in this context means the point in fetal development when the fetus obtains the physical capacity to survive outside the womb.
An embryo cannot develop beyond the embryonic stage, cannot reach viability outside the womb. |
Ok, these are two definitions now. Viability is the ability to survive outside the womb, and viability is something that can or can not be reached outside the womb. Now I'm getting confused.
If viability is the ability to develop beyond the embryonic stage, than most embryos can do that. If viability is about someones ability to survive unassisted outside the womb in their current state, then most newborns and many toddlers would certainly qualify for retroactive abortions.
Luckily we had the good fortune to have a group of lawyers define it for us though. Interestingly enough, if someone was conceived 6 months ago they are viable if they live in most states, but not all. In some states children become viable after 24 weeks. I've never figured out why children in those states become viable faster than other children... Must be something in the water? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:42:45 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Yeah.. I did try that - seemed like it would work too. Sadly, she's been raised and conditioned to believe that the only key to heaven is accepting and acknowledging the 'fact' that Jesus died for my sins, and that only through him can I find salvation.
I will say that if I am wrong, and there is a God, Heaven, Jesus(gatekeeper), etc. I only want in if people who are like me are welcome, otherwise I'd prefer the alternative - as an eternity filled with 'that sort' seems as close to Hell as anything I can possibly imagine. ;) |
Actually she's quite right about that part, but you certainly seem bright enough that if after you die, you meet a guy with long hair, a beard and nail holes in His hands and feet, and He says, "Hey Cory... I died for your sins... I'm here to offer you salvation..." that you'll likely say something along the lines of "Cool... Thanks...".
No where in Scripture does it say you have to accept Jesus BEFORE you die and meet Him. He says "Blest are they that believed without seeing", but He never said "Damned are they that don't."
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 12:43:34. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:50:21 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is there any reason to feel these conflicts are caused because the people are religious and not because the people are people (ie. this is the way people are). |
Absolutely. Even if you you think the Crusades might have additional justifications, Christianity itself would never have risen beyond cult status if not for Roman emperors killing off those with competing beliefs. More recently, millions have died in Africa as a direct result of the Vatican's religious stance against condoms, millions have died in Ireland and the Middle East as a direct result of religious differences, heretics and witches killed, gays bashed, and honor killings all justified in the direct name of religion. This list is very long indeed.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At this point "atheism" becomes the ephemeral ghost where nothing can be laid at its door because it isn't a "creed" |
Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. |
You miss the point Shannon. (and, by the way, assume I am not clicking on any of your links. You have parsed far too many unvetted links in the past for me to consider it worthwhile). The point is we would expect that such problems would not exist in the areligious societies, no? Do we see that? Not at all. I'm not saying people don't use religion as a tool to do wrong to others, I'm saying they do the very same things (under different guises) even if religion isn't there.
BTW, are you REALLY including Ireland in a sentence talking about "millions have died"??? How many people have died in the Northern Ireland conflicts again? (I know the answer, but I'm curious if you do...) I'm guessing the conversation only has one or two more posts to go before it crosses the "useless" line...
(for the rest who don't want to look it up, the official answer is 3,568 from 1969 to 2010.) |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:51:49 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
..
No where in Scripture does it say you have to accept Jesus BEFORE you die and meet Him. He says "Blest are they that believed without seeing", but He never said "Damned are they that don't." |
Is it not implied?
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 12:53:15. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:53:59 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Just curious if maybe there is something in this statement? Can you maybe tell me how you think this affected your decision to return to religion? Do you think perhaps you were never really an Atheist at all, but perhaps just angry with the church, or God, or whatever?
|
Oh Cory, Cory, Cory! Haven't you learned never to ask a Christian about their conversion story?!?
Remember... You asked... When i answer this, you can't call it cramming anything down your throat ;)
But seriously, it's a really long story and my lunch breaks over... Once I get the last student out of here I'll start working on it...
If you actually want the answer that is... Let me know
Edit : Short answer, yep I was a real Atheist...
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 13:00:01. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 12:55:16 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by myqyl:
..
No where in Scripture does it say you have to accept Jesus BEFORE you die and meet Him. He says "Blest are they that believed without seeing", but He never said "Damned are they that don't." |
Is it not implied? |
No where I've ever seen... The opposite is actually implied. And i study the Bible, one might say, religiously |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:11:50 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Just curious if maybe there is something in this statement? Can you maybe tell me how you think this affected your decision to return to religion? Do you think perhaps you were never really an Atheist at all, but perhaps just angry with the church, or God, or whatever?
|
Oh Cory, Cory, Cory! Haven't you learned never to ask a Christian about their conversion story?!?
Remember... You asked... When i answer this, you can't call it cramming anything down your throat ;)
But seriously, it's a really long story and my lunch breaks over... Once I get the last student out of here I'll start working on it...
If you actually want the answer that is... Let me know
Edit : Short answer, yep I was a real Atheist... |
Well, mostly I'm curious if you think the fact that you eventually found reality to be not worth-while might have played a strong role in your decision to return to religion instead?
You can spare the irrelevant details, but I do think there really is something almost Freudian in what you've said here. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:14:06 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by myqyl:
..
No where in Scripture does it say you have to accept Jesus BEFORE you die and meet Him. He says "Blest are they that believed without seeing", but He never said "Damned are they that don't." |
Is it not implied? |
No where I've ever seen... The opposite is actually implied. And i study the Bible, one might say, religiously |
Hmm. I can think of specific instances of threats of burning, but not any specific references to the non-believers being accepted, once having been given the opportunity to convert - of course people who never were told of Jesus are exempt, but I have effectively "cast Jesus from my life", and therefore am, according to all the interpretations that I am aware of, going to burn in hell. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:35:34 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Hmm. I can think of specific instances of threats of burning, but not any specific references to the non-believers being accepted, once having been given the opportunity to convert - of course people who never were told of Jesus are exempt, but I have effectively "cast Jesus from my life", and therefore am, according to all the interpretations that I am aware of, going to burn in hell. |
I see the problem... It's the "according to all the interpretations that I am aware of" part. Don't listen to someone's interpretation... Just read what it says. I make a point of not trying to talk Atheists into reading the Bible since they rarely will if prompted to, but if you like I'll do a little study tonight and put together a list of verses. I'm no huge fan of verses as it gives a fortune cookie view of the actaul Bible, but if I just told you "Read the Book of Matthew" you'd probably think it was just a dodge. (Although that's really what you SHOULD do... And NOT the King James butchery of it either... Pick up the NAB (available online for free)... Takes under an hour to read for most average readers. If you're impatient just read Chapter 25)
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 13:36:59. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:47:27 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(and, by the way, assume I am not clicking on any of your links. You have parsed far too many unvetted links in the past for me to consider it worthwhile). |
Assume I won't bother to read the rest of this or any other post you write out of equal courtesy because it's too often ignorant drivel and fallacy, both on full display in this thread, and you're not worth my time.
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 13:48:04. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:50:30 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, mostly I'm curious if you think the fact that you eventually found reality to be not worth-while might have played a strong role in your decision to return to religion instead?
You can spare the irrelevant details, but I do think there really is something almost Freudian in what you've said here. |
Irrelevant details is an oxymoron in my book, but I think I understand what you're asking, so :
By the time I came back to religion (Buddhist was first if I remember correctly) I had lost my non-belief in reality and my reintroduction to reality as, well, real, was what brought me back... Once I concluded that reality existed (while still an Atheist) I started searching for the "nature" of reality which led to a search for the reason for reality, which led me to an exploration of virtually every philosophy / religion I could lay my hands on, which, long story short, brought me back to the Catholic Church about 10 years later.
That's about as Reader's Digest as I can make it. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:53:18 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Christianity itself would never have risen beyond cult status if not for Roman emperors killing off those with competing beliefs. |
Profoundly true... If the Romans hadn't crucified Jesus, Christianity would have been dead in the water. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 01:54:56 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the OP's point could have been that the link between the negative aspects of the Crusades and religion (certainly modern religion) are as tenuous or as strong as the link between China being an atheist government and their forced abortion policy. |
Not as tenuous, and not limited to the Crusades...
Originally posted by Paul:
I agree, talk of the crusades is perhaps silly in a modern context. Catholic cover ups of child abuse, Islamic abuse of women, religious faction conflicts in the middle east, sectarian conflicts between India and Pakistan or in Northern Ireland - perhaps not so much. |
|
This is the point where people start making laundry lists and comparing those lists, etc. Useless. Is there any reason to feel these conflicts are caused because the people are religious and not because the people are people (ie. this is the way people are). You mention abuse of women, but that happens worldwide AND one could point out (which has been done in other threads), the Chinese government is responsible for killing unborn women at a much higher rate than unborn men (not to mention forcing a woman to have an abortion). Isn't that highly abusive to women to kill them and take their babies away? Does it mean anything when I point it out? (I know how the conversation goes though. At this point "atheism" becomes the ephemeral ghost where nothing can be laid at its door because it isn't a "creed". But the point is if religion is the sickness, then we shouldn't expect symptoms when we don't have religion yet here we are, abusing women in an areligious society.) |
I thought it was implicit within my wider point (that you don't quote) that it isn't about religion at all - it's about societies and cultures BUT those societies and cultures use the agency of organised religion to facilitate and sometimes justify such activities. Of course it's people that do it - in the absence of a god, that's all there is - just people. It's the hegemonic nature of religion that I object to. People kidding themselves about the existence of a deity - not so much, that (on its own) has little impact in the wider world.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:07:37 PM · #66 |
It would be nice if everyone just accepts the belief of other people, without trying to convince them to believe theirs.
I was raised as a Christian, but over the years I decided for myself that I don't believe in God or any deity. So at a certain point I guess I'm an atheist.
I believe that Jesus has existed, I don't believe in his miracles.
But I respect others who believe in God and the miracles of Jesus.
Whether their God is called Buddha, Allah, or God, it doesn't make a difference to me.
Am I bad for not believing in any deity?
I do no harm (at least not on purpose but I'm only human), I help people wherever I can, whenever I can.
I forgive others when they've hurt me (forgive is not the same as forget)
No religion or no believe is to be called good, less good or bad. No religion or belief is inferior to the other(s). No religion/belief deserves more or less respect that the other.
What I do think is bad, in any religion or belief, is extremism.
People who do acts of crime against humanity and hide themselves behind their religion or God.
People who discriminate or attack other people for having different believes, are they to be called "good people"?
Is it acceptable to link abortion to atheism? No. Both are unrelated.
I know Muslims who did an abortion. I know atheists who are against it. I myself am against it in almost every case. Yes, there's well written "almost" every case.
I know of priests who abused children. While priests are supposed to be the role model of their community and preach the word of God.
Respect for any human being and his/her belief, that's one of the ground stones of being "good" and it has nothing to do with believing in God, praying on your knees, going to church or whatever other thing that might "prove" your a believer.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:12:39 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"Viability" in this context means the point in fetal development when the fetus obtains the physical capacity to survive outside the womb.
An embryo cannot develop beyond the embryonic stage, cannot reach viability outside the womb. |
Ok, these are two definitions now. Viability is the ability to survive outside the womb, and viability is something that can or can not be reached outside the womb. Now I'm getting confused.
If viability is the ability to develop beyond the embryonic stage, than most embryos can do that. If viability is about someones ability to survive unassisted outside the womb in their current state, then most newborns and many toddlers would certainly qualify for retroactive abortions.
Luckily we had the good fortune to have a group of lawyers define it for us though. Interestingly enough, if someone was conceived 6 months ago they are viable if they live in most states, but not all. In some states children become viable after 24 weeks. I've never figured out why children in those states become viable faster than other children... Must be something in the water? |
Embryos can develop beyond the embryonic stage in the womb. And I didn't say that viability is the "ability to survive unassisted outside the womb in their current state." If you remove a fetus from the womb before viability -- which largely depends on the maturity of vital organs -- it doesn't matter how much medical intervention is applied to that fetus, it cannot survive. Does that help? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:14:00 PM · #68 |
| are you guys still arguing about this? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:14:26 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, mostly I'm curious if you think the fact that you eventually found reality to be not worth-while might have played a strong role in your decision to return to religion instead?
You can spare the irrelevant details, but I do think there really is something almost Freudian in what you've said here. |
Irrelevant details is an oxymoron in my book, but I think I understand what you're asking, so :
By the time I came back to religion (Buddhist was first if I remember correctly) I had lost my non-belief in reality and my reintroduction to reality as, well, real, was what brought me back... Once I concluded that reality existed (while still an Atheist) I started searching for the "nature" of reality which led to a search for the reason for reality, which led me to an exploration of virtually every philosophy / religion I could lay my hands on, which, long story short, brought me back to the Catholic Church about 10 years later.
That's about as Reader's Digest as I can make it. |
Quite interesting. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:33:44 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I thought it was implicit within my wider point (that you don't quote) that it isn't about religion at all - it's about societies and cultures BUT those societies and cultures use the agency of organised religion to facilitate and sometimes justify such activities. Of course it's people that do it - in the absence of a god, that's all there is - just people. It's the hegemonic nature of religion that I object to. People kidding themselves about the existence of a deity - not so much, that (on its own) has little impact in the wider world. |
If that was your point it looks like it had been coerced by the rhetoric of others. I don't have a lot of problem with your view as expressed above. Religion can be used as a tool by people with very little interest in the religion themselves. I don't disagree at all. I do feel that if religion suddenly disappeared these people would simply reach for another tool to use. Your objection to the authoritative nature of religion is normal. Some people view themselves as their own ultimate authority. These people gravitate toward atheism because, if anything, atheism sells the idea of "control". You are your own "god" and nobody else can tell you what is what. Of course there is a wide spectrum between this and the bigoted view of religious people as mindless drones and most of us fall inbetween.
You present it subtly, but I do object to the idea that is often presented on these threads that religion is only to be tolerated if a) it aligns with one's view on something or b) it has no impact. That view is malarkey. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:41:58 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
It would be nice if everyone just accepts the belief of other people, without trying to convince them to believe theirs. |
Hear! Hear!
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
What I do think is bad, in any religion or belief, is extremism. |
I assume you include non-beliefs as well?
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
People who do acts of crime against humanity and hide themselves behind their religion or God. |
Or Atheist state sponsored crimes
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
People who discriminate or attack other people for having different believes, are they to be called "good people"? |
no more so than those that attack any belief...
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
Is it acceptable to link abortion to atheism? No. Both are unrelated. |
Atheist states are responsible for this misrepresentation... Of course the two are unrelated, but China uses is religion of Atheism to promote it so it misleads people into associating them.
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
I know Muslims who did an abortion. I know atheists who are against it. I myself am against it in almost every case. Yes, there's well written "almost" every case. |
I object to it religiously and like you "in almost every case"... I'm not a big fan of absolutes...
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
I know of priests who abused children. While priests are supposed to be the role model of their community and preach the word of God. |
I've heard of a very small minority of priests guilty of this, and in my life growing up in the Church I've met hundreds of priests that are completely innocent of this, yet defamed as pedophiles for living a life of service to others. I include attacks on all priests in the "discriminate or attack other people for having different believes"
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
Respect for any human being and his/her belief, that's one of the ground stones of being "good" and it has nothing to do with believing in God, praying on your knees, going to church or whatever other thing that might "prove" your a believer. |
While I applaud some of this, I have to tell you it tastes a bit like knocking those that do believe, which would make you guilty of the same injustice that you rightly point out in some religious. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:48:25 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Assume I won't bother to read the rest of this or any other post you write... |
Cross your heart and hope to die? :) |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 02:49:18 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Paul:
I thought it was implicit within my wider point (that you don't quote) that it isn't about religion at all - it's about societies and cultures BUT those societies and cultures use the agency of organised religion to facilitate and sometimes justify such activities. Of course it's people that do it - in the absence of a god, that's all there is - just people. It's the hegemonic nature of religion that I object to. People kidding themselves about the existence of a deity - not so much, that (on its own) has little impact in the wider world. |
If that was your point it looks like it had been coerced by the rhetoric of others. I don't have a lot of problem with your view as expressed above. Religion can be used as a tool by people with very little interest in the religion themselves. I don't disagree at all. I do feel that if religion suddenly disappeared these people would simply reach for another tool to use. Your objection to the authoritative nature of religion is normal. Some people view themselves as their own ultimate authority. These people gravitate toward atheism because, if anything, atheism sells the idea of "control". You are your own "god" and nobody else can tell you what is what. Of course there is a wide spectrum between this and the bigoted view of religious people as mindless drones and most of us fall inbetween.
You present it subtly, but I do object to the idea that is often presented on these threads that religion is only to be tolerated if a) it aligns with one's view on something or b) it has no impact. That view is malarkey. |
I pretty much agree with everything that you said - think the control thing is a sound point; I certainly recognise that in myself but the scientific-logical underpinnings are there too - it's not all about self-determination, though it is perhaps part of the pull.
You point b) is very fair. You made me think and I should retract my earlier comment, I do accept that some people's belief (as distinct from active participation in an organised religious movement) causes them to act in a particular way that may have a profound impact in the world. Would those people act similarly if they hadn't been introduced to a god-concept. Very difficult to say. What do you think? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 03:00:14 PM · #74 |
| I think I got no problem with you, Paul. :) |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 03:01:16 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Embryos can develop beyond the embryonic stage in the womb. And I didn't say that viability is the "ability to survive unassisted outside the womb in their current state." If you remove a fetus from the womb before viability -- which largely depends on the maturity of vital organs -- it doesn't matter how much medical intervention is applied to that fetus, it cannot survive. Does that help? |
But embryos are routinely removed from wombs and, through medical intervention, preserved and eventually reinserted into another womb. Survival rate is actually quite high for this.
I hate to split hairs here, but it literally means the difference between life and death for about 1 million kids each year in the US alone. The number is staggering when the rest of the world is included (not to say i ain't staggered by the death of a million kids)... I think it's important that we define this correctly.
I have hopes that one day science will make this a moot point, allowing for "survivable abortions" where a woman can terminate her part in the pregnancy and the baby can still live. As I see the age threshold of "viable" premmie babies rapidly plummet in the last decade my hopes that this debate will end with a happily ever after for everyone involved continues to grow. |
|
