Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe, I can't speak for "most" belief systems. Confucianism, for example, does not posit the existence of any sort of afterlife. Christianity, as another example, does not teach that we do good deeds in exchange for heaven but rather that we do good deeds because they are good.

True, but most religions in some form or another have blaring similarities. Doing good deeds, conversion, helping the needy, teaching in parables, etc. They may not all believe in the same god or belief in the afterlife, but they do teach people to be good.

I suppose, but there are important differences not least of which is the idea of good that each one offers.

"Good" has always been a subjective term throughout human history.

@Manchu- Your being rather specific aren't you?

The fact that 'good', and 'evil', are at the core of all mainstream religions is enough to generically gather them into a category.

There are many interpretations of what 'good' and 'evil' are, both inside, and out of religion.

...

...

Wrex got freaking ninja'd... I needs to hone my skillz.

Ironhide wrote:"Good" has always been a subjective term throughout human history.

Apparently so has "God".

BTW, I leave for 4 hours and come back to read this mess?!?

FITZZ wrote:
However,and please correct me if I'm wrong, converting others is one of the tenents of Christianity..is it not?

Partly, we are all called to be witnesses but evangelism is a specific gift and not all have it. I most certainly do not.
I dont preach not for lack of care but lack of skill. Evangelism is an art and a people skill, do it wrong and you do more harm than good.
We witnesses by trying to live a good life and trying to live by example, by living out the evidence of a good faith life. This might involve talking to individuals about God at the right time, but not a conversion trip.

FITZZ wrote:
I'm not a Christian,I don't belive in any god..however,I don't actively attempt to persude others to "renounce god"
I see it as part of an idividules personal freedom to accept god if they so choose to..or to not belive in any god...or to worship chickens if that's what they decide floats their boat.

Lets put it from a neutral perspective. If a Moslem came up to me and told me that I must accept Mohammed as the true prophet of Allah to be saved from the flames of hell isn't the parson trying to do me a favour?
I can only answer this with a yes.
According to his own belief system Islam is the answer and many Moslems believe that in a positive way with good intentions. Yes it is also true that nowadays western converts are often eventually the most radicalised and dangerous, but we will leave the scum out of it for now and assume the persons we meet are a genuine benign men of faith.

Now this has been put into practice, i had a Christian education and upbringing but became a Christian of my own free will much later, because I was open minded I have had at least two attempts to convert me, once at university and once shortly afterwards. The first one was carefully orchestrated and included an invitation to sit for a meal and a video with some Libyan students who I had befriended, the other a chance meeting. It might have happened more often since but my social horizons collapsed as I got older and put education years behind me, and I meet far fewer people than I used to. the chance meeting ended up with my sitting in Euston station with a copy of the Koran I was just given. I sat there and genuinely asked God - who I was not hearing clearly until many years later, if Islam was his path for me.

Later in another course at another place I knew a Moslem girl from Bangladesh who I got on very well with to put the point. She was visibly saddened when I told her these stories, I could read in her eyes a worry for me as I had made a terrible mistake by hearing the will of Allah and consciously rejecting it by remaining a Christian. Which put me at a far worse position than one who had never heard the will of Allah. She was concerned for my soul, she never pressed the point beyond a few careful initial remarks and we remained close.

FITZZ wrote:
On the other hand, I have been told by more Christians than I could count that I am surely damned to hell for my belifes (an idea that amuses me ),so..where is the open mind when speaking with these individules?

This is difficult.

First thing, and I don't like saying it is that they may well be right. The end of a Christless life is damnation in hell. There said it, I mean it and believe it.

However I have seen as lot of Christian whackjobs bring out the hell card way too often and for the wrong reasons. the message of Christianity is the Gospel, which literally means 'Good news'. Hell is anything but good news. the emphasis must always be on salvation, mercy, and love if anything at all. Hell was always the default setting anyway.

From your commentary it is likely you got condemned by someone for something you specifically said and do. This is out and out wrong. i have seen this too. One of my best friends is a soldier, he has taken human life, he was told my several Christians including two church of England priests that he would burn in hell for that. Actually priests should know better.

I put him straight.
Specifically I mentioned that New Testament spiritual encounters with soldiers were almost always positive. Jesus commended the faith of the centurion above all in Israel. A centurion in Israel at that time probably had a lot of blood on his hands, other centurions of faith were mentioned. Furthermore both Jesus and John the Baptist had a lot to say about dodgy professions and neither were meek enough to refrain from critiquing the profession of arms. Yet in the New Testament there is only one commandment to soldiers: 'be content with your pay'. That is to say, do not use your position of power to extort money from the populace.
thats it, no exhortation to repent of their profession. Jesus didn't tell the soldiers to repent of their profession like he did the prostitutes ( back on topic for a fleeting moment) or repent within their profession as he did most types of priest. So why should some wazzock in a casock then condemn soldiery.

FITZZ wrote:
Where is their good will?

Sadly lacking. I apologise on behalf of real Christians everywhere.

FITZZ wrote:
Not tying to flame or "troll"...it simply has been my experince that "understanding" and "acceptance" always go hand in hand with attempts at converting.

A justifiable concern.

Ironhide wrote:Respectfully, I disagree Manchu. At points, it seems Orlanth comes off as speaking down towards others, and that is where I think some of the flak comes from. No disrespect towards anyone. That is just how I perceive it.

That is certainly not the intention, I speak from experience within my paradigm, and wont back down from it because I am secure in my belief systems, not because I am better or holier, thats likely not true and not relevant; but because of a long consistent and positive experience of the Christian God.
What you (collectively) believe is up to you, it would be nice if you saw what I saw and experienced God for yourselves, my God is great and meeting Him is well worth the trip.

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think you are underestimating the power of ideas. Did Calvin and Luther usher in war and violence? No, those things have always existed.

Of course not.

Manchu wrote:They did, however, undermine key assumptions about faith and its relationship to authority. The religious opinions of the Reformers have affected far more than religion.

Sure some philospohical outlook changes had far reaching effects.

I recommend The Day The Universe Changed by James Burke to you. You might prefer the videos instead on YouTube, the book covered a documentary series from the 80's.

However philosophy as a cassus belli doesn't wash. Its an excuse to line the real cause of war.

tblock1984 wrote:
Not meaning to be rude, but that is Copy-Pasta. I have read that all before.

Very unfair, you might just string together poem and learn it verbotem while remaining ignorant of its meaning, but a Creed is something different. The main church creeds are long thought over, word for word in minute detail and thoroughly reviewed if place in modern language. They are specifically and painstaking designed so that they can be learned digested and understood. you can recite a creed without knowing what it stands for, that much is true. but it would be most unfair to assume that of anyone you don't know as by the working definition of a Creed it is elementary teaching. If you know and understand the creed of a denomination you essentially know and understand the church that uses it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ironhide wrote:Do not most belief systems practice in some form that a person should do good deeds in order to have a good afterlife?

Islam has that opinion:

Take a step towards Allah and Allah takes a step towards you.

Manchu wrote:Maybe, I can't speak for "most" belief systems. Confucianism, for example, does not posit the existence of any sort of afterlife. Christianity, as another example, does not teach that we do good deeds in exchange for heaven but rather that we do good deeds because they are good.

I cant speak for Confucianism but Christianity has a dichotomy between faith and works. We are justified by faith alone but only through works is our faith complete. its tricky to grasp, essentially doing good will not get us to heaven, only faith in Jesus attains salvation which is a free gift of god. However faith without works is worthless meaning that once we have salvation we ought to do good because we are should set and example and be grateful to god.
This does mean if you read the RAW properly, we can accept salvation live lives of sin and then go to heaven. This is indeed the case, salvation is a free gift.

However heaven is not a classless society, while even the poorest man in heaven is content and lacks for no basic need, those who do good works earn an progressively better place in salvation. This system is also amended by ones ability to do good. Those with more are expected to do more. This is the comment about the rich man, rich men can get their ticket the same as poor men, but the more you have its harder to work up a decent quality afterlife.

All in all Christianity is a very good package deal.

This thread really went nowhere quick while I was at work....

JEB_Stuart wrote:This thread really went nowhere quick while I was at work....

I thought it was okay. Why be so negative?

He's not currently in England?

Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?

What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?

Maybe, that isn't for us to decide. The matter of his salvation was between him and God. I do not think it wise to speculate about any person's salvation, that is a judgment reserved for God alone. I am definitely unnerved when people make jokes about it...

Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?

Spiritually? The saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Physically? Nothing. I have known many good men, but being good does not guarantee an afterlife in Paradise.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?

Karmic wheel, though he may have broke free of it, but considering that he still had a lot of normal human issues probably not.

Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?

Usually better parties with more authentic buffalo wings.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?

Maybe, that isn't for us to decide. The matter of his salvation was between him and God. I do not think it wise to speculate about any person's salvation, that is a judgment reserved for God alone. I am definitely unnerved when people make jokes about it...

Well, TBH I wasn't really making fun of it. There are truly good people out there, and I would be willing to bet that there are perfectly good people out there that are not christians and have never heard of or had the opportunity to confess thier sins and be born again. What happens to them? IMHO, it's a massive hole in the theory.

(I do see your point though, I only knew Ghandi by reputation so I can't possinly speak on his behalf)

Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?

Spiritually? The saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Physically? Nothing. I have known many good men, but being good does not guarantee an afterlife in Paradise.

Not to sounds antagonistic, but that's according to you. And is still applicable to my previous question.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?

Karmic wheel, though he may have broke free of it, but considering that he still had a lot of normal human issues probably not.

Well, how are we supposed to know where the moral line is drawn between damnation and salvation?

Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?

Usually better parties with more authentic buffalo wings.

How do I put this? That was...slightly funnier, but slighlty less helpful than JEB_Stuarts post.

@TBlock - Try to chill a bit, man - you can be atheist without being misotheistic. I know know it's hard, given your background - but atheist hostility fuels conflict in exactly the same way as religious hostility. As atheists we should be commited to taking the high-road.
Although...

Orlanth wrote:dangerous fallacies such as atheism = science

These sort of statements will only inflame hostility towards the religious. What a completely arrogant statement. Dangerous fallacies? No offence, but you believe that you talk to god. An absence of theistic belief is the scientific default position, as belief in god is completely unsupported by evidence. You may accept evolution and the big bang, but you haven't arrived at the belief in supreme beings by a dispassionate examination of the (current) scientific facts. If you want people to respect your viewpoints, try refraining from derisive statements such as this. After all, you believe some pretty wacky stuff yourself.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?

Karmic wheel, though he may have broke free of it, but considering that he still had a lot of normal human issues probably not.

Well, how are we supposed to know where the moral line is drawn between damnation and salvation?

Damnation and salvation? In my Hindu? To know you would have to be able to see beyond dualistic thinking and pierce the maya (viel) of reality. See things for what they are, not as the ego perceives them to be. One of the main being that there is no "I". You know, interconnectedness, blah blah blah.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, TBH I wasn't really making fun of it.

I didn't think you were, I was just making a comment.

Emperors Faithful wrote:There are truly good people out there, and I would be willing to bet that there are perfectly good people out there that are not Christians and have never heard of or had the opportunity to confess their sins and be born again. What happens to them? IMHO, it's a massive hole in the theory.

Christianity is not a theory, it is a system of faith. It is interesting that you bring up just this point though. Many people see your point as a major flaw in the claims of Christianity, almost a contradiction. How can a God, who claims to be all loving, powerful, knowing etc., send people to Hell if they didn't even have a chance to accept Christ? American Indians, young children, the illiterate and so on are held up as examples of those who have never had the chance to accept God. Thankfully St. Paul provides us with a clear answer in his Epistle to the Romans. It is in the second chapter that he tells us that God has implanted a reflection of the law upon the souls of all men. He writes further that all who have not heard the gospel of Christ will be judged only by what has been revealed to them, and this may either accuse or excuse them from God's judgment.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not to sounds antagonistic, but that's according to you. And is still applicable to my previous question.

I do not presume that this is according to me. Rather, this is according to Scripture. But as I have said before: I know not the hearts and minds of other men, nor do I have any right to judge them. I take my beliefs on Faith, and on that I hold firm.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:dangerous fallacies such as atheism = science

These sort of statements will only inflame hostility towards the religious. What a completely arrogant statement. Dangerous fallacies? No offence, but you believe that you talk to god. An absence of theistic belief is the scientific default position, as belief in god is completely unsupported by evidence. You may accept evolution and the big bang, but you haven't arrived at the belief in supreme beings by a dispassionate examination of the (current) scientific facts. If you want people to respect your viewpoints, try refraining from derisive statements such as this. After all, you believe some pretty wacky stuff yourself.

I don't take back that comment I reinforce it.

There is no proof of God or lack of God, so the default for science is a neutrality. Neutrality is a long long way from atheism. Science ignores rather than discounts theistic presence, its the difference between 'there is no God', and 'lets leave God out of this'. Science can do the latter because God leaves no presence and thus His existence or non existence does not alter scientific method or interfere with human observation. we are simply unable to quantify any influence He has at all. This leaves it wide open for individuals to believe what they like.

Atheism is not science, atheism is faith.

Note that I have no right to claim atheism is a lie. I am not saying that. I don't believe it, but you are logically free to believe it, just dont mask it as scientific method. It isn't, its a religious preference.

Albatross wrote:
What a completely arrogant statement.

The science = atheism fallacy can be logically debunked. I have shown how it is done so on logic and logic alone. I did not critique the science = atheism fallacy based on belief or faith, that would just be a counter opinion.
Logic can afford to be definitive because logic is, that isn't arrogance it is truth.

I have been very careful when speaking on unproven elements such as God to use different terminology. Because I cannot prove what I say and others may hold a different view. I haver a strong opinion, as you noticed, but no proof aso I cannot definiatively call you wrong on your core belief system, only when you mask it as science.

Albatross wrote:
Dangerous fallacies? No offence, but you believe that you talk to god.

That is the real arrogance. I only speak by my own example, I am convinced for myself but I make no claim that I have definitive proof.

So my faith is a fallacy, you say, while accusing arrogance on the other party. Very well, go ahead and prove it.

Either prove here and now that God does not exist and I have been lying, or take back your words.

This is a rhetorical question, you would if you could, even Dawkins can go no far than to say that the existence of God is very unlikely, by his opinion. There are many out there who would love to disprove God. Fact is they cannot.
If you cannot prove an error in my thinking, you cannot define it as fallacious. I speak to God, you can choose to believe its true or not, and you are free to disagree with me to my face on a counter point of faith. But is it not a tad arrogant and thus more than a tad hypocritical and insulting make a definitive statement that my faith is a fallacy and thus a lie.

Albatross wrote:
as belief in god is completely unsupported by evidence.

Here you are espousing very poor science, you can issue a blanket denial of evidence for God, but it takes a lot of front could we say arrogance to blanket dismiss it while presuming a scientific standpoint.. Evidence is there. evidence is there both ways. Atheist apologists like Dawkins et al give their evidence to believe there is not God, they even apply scientific method to them, but there is not proof and atheism as is remains a faith choice.
Likewise there is evidence the other way, archeological evidence that supports Biblical stories, miracles are also occasionally documented but likewise there is no proof. God remains aloof from the status of scientific fact for whatever reason you prefer is true.

Unsupported by proof, ok. I can go with that. God is not scientifically proven, but not unsupported by evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God you might choose to dismiss it, but that is your choice not a definitive statement of fact.

Your blanket claim that 'God is completely unsupported by evidence' can only be described as pig ignorance if it is a scientific comment, or a great big leap of faith if it isn't. Have you any idea just how many books there are on this subject? Can you stand up and say they are all debunked. Books on testimony, books on miracles, book on archeological and historical evidence, books on proven predicted prophesy. Not vague Nostradamus stuff but something really exacting predicted millenia ago. Let me give you one piece of evidence that stands up, which will of course be enough to debunk the 'completely unsupported' jibe:

The Signature of God by Grant R Jeffrey includes one such example. Now he uses the word proof instead of evidence too much for pure science, but for this he can be forgiven. He found something extraordinary. By using the Hebrew religious calender of 360 days and no other evidence except plain text passages from the Bible namely: Exodus 12:41, Jeremiah 25:11, Ezra 1:3, Ezekiel 4:3-6 and Leviticus 26:18 cross referenced with Revelations 12:6 he indicated that the exact date of the end of the exile of Israel to be 15th May 1948, the exact date of the Independence of Israel. I can go into this in more detail and go through the evidence with the thread verse by verse and see how we can come to that date if anyone is interested. It will take another text wall, full references will be given so you can follow the commentary and see for yourself.

Just remember that no-one doubts that these Biblical passages are themselves ancient, to predict a major event TO THE DAY from millenia ago looks like evidence to anyone. This is not numerology, just observation of the passages in plain text.

I believed before I read this evidence, but if I had to I could make a fair claim that my God is real because He writes His promises long ago, and keeps them on time. "God is completely unsupported by evidence", as I am happy to show you if challenged there is little chance of that being a fair objective scientific comment.

Of course there is other evidence and like the books of Dawkins and atheist apologists they have their critics. Some are written without scientific methodology and are debunked most of those werre not intended as scientific documents but used such words as proof. There are likewise similar works of atheism that are poorly founded, but many works survive on both sides.

Despite this Albatross is not alone, many will attempt to claim that the existence of God lacks evidence. Its a growing dogma and part of the mindset of what happens when atheists hijack science and claim it for exclusive religious use. Atheism being a religion at heart has its fair share of prophets and martyrs, it also has its fair share of fundamentalists and persecutors. To whome science is a useful tool. They deceive others who honestly believe atheism is scientific and lead their flock to have increased intolerence to religious thought and person.
The Soviets used this technique extensively, and it is prevelant in current Chinese thinking and it has since infected mainstream science and atheists alike.

Albatross wrote:
If you want people to respect your viewpoints, try refraining from derisive statements such as this. After all, you believe some pretty wacky stuff yourself.

Here comes the crunch. This last comment showed signs of the fundamentalist dogma and is a good example of why the atheism = science fallacy must be properly addressed. I will make this caveat I suspect Albatross of being unaware of where the atheism = science fallacy actually leads and likely would step back from these dogmas consciously, yet espounds them only unwittingly.

Let me show you how this can be fairly interpreted: "Our belief system, atheism is orthodox, so orthodox we don't need to call a religious preference anymore, its simply science! Whereas a theistic faith system is not and is thus open to derision if it challenges established science as a mere religion. After all those religious people believe wacky things by definition unlike atheists. So we can belittle them and ignore their commentaries and expect them to walk on egg shells around us because the social plane for future discourse is now shifted. We are by default learned and they are by default dreamers. Because we atheists are scientists at heart and we are wiser than thou. Furthermore we can espound out scientific beliefs in areas where religion is not allowed and tell people under the banner of science that there is no God without recourse to reply because religious people don't belong in the science media."

I hope Albatross you understand why the fallacy must be addressed. You see for science to be consistent at the very minimum it raises ethical questions. If atheism is seen as scientific 'fact', erroneously or otherwise then by absolute logical definition theism is not science and is not a fact. How long would it be before people with faith backgrounds different from your own are unwelcome in the labs and universities. Why allow Christians or Moslems or others who deny your supposed scientific 'facts' of atheism to teach or participate in science. Outside of this you would have a very uneven debate platform, which will inevitably lead to an intellectual freezeout that will extend beyond the scientific community. You cannot take the science = atheism argument in any logical way, logic passes beyond your convenient boundaries to wherever it leads. If atheism really is science then a lot of people apparently just are not good scientists, people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and many many others.

You complain at my 'arrogance'. Yet if atheism is science Einstein was not an objective scientist. It's very clear that he had a theistic faith system all his working life, it was there when he wrote his papers, it was there afterwards. This is where your local scientific atheism leads you, here is the first "heretic" who's door I will lead you too. Can you make that call Mr Albatross, can you?


Atheism is a faith system.

Relapse wrote:Here's an online dictionary definition of addiction:

"the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."

Getting a divorce or having to go to a treatment center seems fairly traumatic to me.

Getting divorced was the best thing that ever happened to me.

on topic: Religion, drugs, porn. it's all kind of the same.

Orlanth wrote:

I don't take back that comment I reinforce it.

There is no proof of God or lack of God, so the default for science is a neutrality.

Atheism is not science, atheism is faith.

Note that I have no right to claim atheism is a lie. I am not saying that. I don't believe it, but you are logically free to believe it, just dont mask it as scientific method. It isn't, its a religious preference.

Atheism is a faith system.

Again, how on earth can not believing in something be a belief system? None belief IS belief? Is that how you try to win an argument? Just put your fingers in your ears and crack on anyway? It even SOUNDS stupid. None belief IS belief?!

Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Or not playing 40k? Is that a hobby?

Do you disbelieve in Santa? Ok thats your Religion. You must be a devout Anti Santa-ist.

Or are you going with the argument from belief?

OK then, do you believe that your mobile phone will make a call when you press the call button on it? Ok then, you dont think that because of prior events and experience, no, thats your Religion.

Calling a lack of belief a "Religious preference" is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard, and i usually only hear it when i am watching someone like Kent Hovind on youtube. A convicted fraudster who is constantly repeating this point because it makes his own evidence free belief look more likely if everything that everyone in the world can happen to believe in is classed as a "Religion" too.

I believe that Chemotherapy can sometimes cause cancer to go into remission, is that my Religion? We could play the game all night long, you cant just pick anything at all that someone thinks they agree or disagree with and then decree it a "Religion" because you want it to be so.

Your statement is about as convincing as saying that the capital of France is Berlin. You can keep saying it all you like, but it doesnt make it valid.

You can use my argument above for anything at all, hobbys or belief/non belief that a helicopter will fly or the oven will cook your steak, but regards to Religion, it is all too easy to point out its absurdity. Apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions for example, if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh exists? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?

If you do believe in Ganesh, you cant be a real Christian right? If you are a Christian, do you believe that Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith then!

Is that you Orlanth? Are you a devout No Ganesh, No Thor, No Amun -Ra ist?

Thats your religion. You said so yourself. None belief IS a religious belief is it not?

Regardless of all this, ill put the question to you, what do you think makes something a religion? I have proven above that a lack of belief cannot be a belief (just say those 6 words to yourself again slowly, its actually so ridiculous that im stunned i have written so much on the topic) I shall summarise by saying that even ignoring all of the above, a lack of belief cannot be a religious belief because it does not involve any of the following things that i would presume are common place in religious peoples lives.

Belief in God(s), Prayer, Churches or temples, Holy Books or Scripture, Priests /religious leaders, Belief in anything supernatural (including angels / devils), Miracles, an Afterlife, Holy wars, Heaven / Hell, Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.) Belief without evidence, Belief despite conflicting evidence, Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans, Murderous fundamentalist extremists, Annoying street / doorstep preachers, The soul, Regular ceremonies / acts of worship, Sin, Blasphemy....

Spiritually? The saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Physically? Nothing. I have known many good men, but being good does not guarantee an afterlife in Paradise.

Going to have to say you are wrong there JEB. I can cite evidence in the bible, where people went to heaven without the saving grace of christ.

Your statement is about as convincing as saying that the capital of France is Berlin.

Ya know, every once in a while the Germans keep insisting thats the case as well...

Frazzled wrote:

Your statement is about as convincing as saying that the capital of France is Berlin.

Ya know, every once in a while the Germans keep insisting thats the case as well...

Only in Alt History Books.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Your statement is about as convincing as saying that the capital of France is Berlin.

Ya know, every once in a while the Germans keep insisting thats the case as well...

Only in Alt History Books.

Well they did put forth strong arguments in the 1880s, 1914, and 1940.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Your statement is about as convincing as saying that the capital of France is Berlin.

Ya know, every once in a while the Germans keep insisting thats the case as well...

Only in Alt History Books.

Well they did put forth strong arguments in the 1880s, 1914, and 1940.

That's what I mean by Alt History Real History involves Mechs and Pewpew Lazors!

Orlanth:
I can see where you are coming from. There's nothing current in science at all that says definitively one way or another ANYTHING about god. Pure atheism is in fact unscientific, as it stops one being open to the possibility that current ideas are incorrect- science can never truly prove anything right, only that what we thought before was wrong and the new theory is more likely to be right.

Unfortunately many people who are agnostic refer to themselves as atheist in my experience. (Not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth). True atheism seems to me to require a level of faith similar to belief in a deity. Strong, almost certain levels of doubt in the existence of God is not the same as militant atheism. (Gah, the language really isn't clear and it makes talking about this stuff really difficult.)
On the other hand, I can see how Mattym and others get frustrated by being told that they have a faith system, because while militant atheism requires faith, there are many grades of non-belief that do not. Faith system is also synonymous (perhaps incorrectly) with religion to some people. It's a case of communications breakdown I feel, because the language is relatively imprecise, and many of us are not theologians. And I appreciate your concise use of language in saying atheism is a faith system, rather than a religion.

My own position is one of doubt and ambivalence. I don't see any particular reason to believe in any particular sort of supreme being. I'm will to accept that possibly there may be one, but I'd be horribly depressed if it could think in any way approaching how we think. Ie. if it has the same understanding of good and bad as we do, and so on. Because to me, that would raise the question of why is the world such a friggin' unfair craphole at times, why do people suffer needlessly and die in agony, why do natural disasters happen, and so on. An all powerful and all knowing creator would have to be a complete hypocrite if it shares our ideas of good and bad, or completely strange and alien if not. And in that case, all the religiously motivated good deeds are pointless, and the existence of God is irrelevant. Another take would be that God is not uncaring or alien, but impotent. That, I find equally depressing, and it makes the idea of God and worshipping God pointless to me again.
It could be that God has some sort of unknowable plan, which is of course what most people of faith believe. That would piss me off too.
So yeah. No doubt several people here find my line of reasoning childish or petulant. I've certainly been told that before by friends with faith. I don't mind, but it is certainly how I feel, and why I am a bit happier with the idea that god doesn't exist, though I accept that he might.

mattyrm wrote:

Again, how on earth can not believing in something be a belief system? None belief IS belief? Is that how you try to win an argument? Just put your fingers in your ears and crack on anyway? It even SOUNDS stupid. None belief IS belief?!

It doesnt sound stupid, its simply that you are hiding a false proposition behind semantics. Let me take your initial comment.

Again, how on earth can not believing in something be a belief system?

Let us rephrase that into an identical but fairer worded question.

Again, how on earth can believing in the absense of something be a belief system?

Once you rephrase this initial question fairly it answers itself, and all the rest of your argument becomes void.



This should b e enough of an answer. but I explained this one to you in an earlier post but you failed to understand. So I will try again in detail.

A chimpanzee has as far as we can tell no religious faith. This does not make a chimpanzee an atheist, it is instead devoid of religion altogether as far as we know.

Someone who has no opinions on God is in a similar position theologically. The trouble is unless someone has the brains of a chimp it is difficult not to address the question of religion at some point. Man is a thanatonic being, that is to say it predicts its own demise and asks why. Sooner or later, usually a lot sooner this ends in a religious choice. Man has always been this way, every tribe even the remotest has a faith system. Faith systems are inherent to the questioning nature of man.
You can try and put off the question, but that isn't atheism. Its also inherently dishonest, because at all stage of awareness people will have some inkling of where they currently stand on this elementary subject even if marginal and even if transitory.

So for example someone who is not sure and looking for more evidence but is currently not believing is still a weak form of atheist, possibly agnostic, according to current status. We are not robots, we do not turn our minds off after processing data, they run all the time. We encounter religion early in life even if unschooled in the subject as the natural mind wanders.

To completely avoid religion and have no default position one must never have an opinion of or think about, life, death, who we are, where we are going and/or what is the purpose of life. Frankly despite the best intentions of the most focused minded (or distracted) savants this is quite impossible. Even if we are that focused, we would still carry preconceptions from our growing up. Frankly the only way to avoid these questions is to be a complete drooling cabbage or live your entire life in a coma, and I am not sure even then.

Thus why the English language allows you to colloquially describe some who is atheist as 'not believing in God' or equivalent religious entities. This is in fact not the case, in English the preface 'not' or 'un-' has two meanings, either a passive lack of the described feature or a proactive non presence of the described feature. Atheism is definately proactive as it involves a mental choice, its is participatory not non-participatory. This is why a person of a foreign faith (from any perspective) is an unbeleiver, 'un-' doesn't signify lack of a belief it signifies an alternate belief.

Atheism isn't a lack of a choice, its a positive choice to disbelieve.

You have done tours so you may have come across the saying 'there are no atheists in foxholes'. While I do not believe this is necessarily true in every case most soldiers I met who otherwise don't think about faith too much agree they prayed at times like that. They might never express a religious preference in their entire service careers but if you dig down deep enough, and fear of battle can bring that out in a man you will find that behind all posturing people have faith choices made deep inside them.
Who knows the experience of a modern combat soldier may well be 'is this it?' Or another atheists final question. I would not be suprised allowing for the complete wishy washy drivel spewed from army chaplains nowadays. The vast majority of the modern army chaplaincy is a disgrace, throughly politically dogmatised and quite unfit to help soldiers in a time of spiritual need, there are some old school but they are few and far between.

I wont address the rest of your post at this time because pretty much all your thinking here hinges on this one misconception.

Regards there being no Atheists in foxholes mate, i can put that one to bed as well.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I do not think it wise to speculate about any person's salvation, that is a judgment reserved for God alone. I am definitely unnerved when people make jokes about it...

Me, too. Or serious claims, for that matter. Makes me cringe.

@DaBoss: Christianity teaches that human suffering is not the end of the story. The mere existence of pain, misery, malice, and terror do not justify them. I can kill you, yes, but that will not be the end of you. This is one facet of the message of Jesus's death and resurrection. The Roman state's authority was based entirely on coercive power: we will kill you unless you obey. They killed Him and, Christians believe, He let them do so. But in three days His tomb was found empty. Afterwards, His disciples saw Him and even ate with Him. Thomas the doubter put his fingers in Christ's wounds because he could not otherwise believe the mere evidence of his eyes that these things were actually happening. Doubt is not the antithesis of faith, it is faith's constant prologue. Christians believe that Jesus Christ conquered death and in His resurrection all people also conquer death. To the Romans, whose power lay in violence and dealing out suffering, Christians recalled the message of their Savior, the Gospel. They refused to accept, by acquiescing to the threat of torture and murder, that pain, sorrow, and death were the final realities of human existence. There are terrible things in this temporal world but there is more to it than that. Those terrible things have an ending. But we Christians believe that the dignity and worth of human life have no ending.