Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Atheism vs. Christian. How is this productive?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 156 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 18, 2012 8:21:19 PM PST
MMX says:
Chuck: "I guess I could have used the "gold standard-of-proof" of idiots and have said, "WILL be used" and allowed for no exceptions to the statement, but there are very few absolutes in social interactions. The statement was correct as written."

MMX: The statement was BOTH correct as written and completely impossible to implement into any reasonable solution.

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

Chuck: "You're working awful hard to find something to criticize, and I'm having trouble following the point you're trying to make. So let me say it another way. I can like the person but dislike their actions or beliefs."

MMX: When you talk about believers-as-a-whole (billions of people, literally) with the standard-of-proof, "As long as I'm right ONCE, then I'm right." - then you're contradicting yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 18, 2012 8:18:53 PM PST
MMX says:
Chuck: "Could it also be because that the answer to the question is so obvious as to be rhetorical? Again, allow me to help you out. The answer is "yes."

MMX: Anyone who says "something is obvious" inevitably means "I'm not going to provide evidence, if you ask for it."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 8:38:18 PM PST
Chuck: "It does not matter if the person/deity is real or imaginary if the personage CAN BE USED to motivate followers to harm to society. To oppose anything harmful makes sense."

MMX: Any argument which hings on the verb "can" automatically uses as the gold standard-of-proof "If it happens JUST ONCE, then I'm right." But it's senseless to talk about something that affects billions of people, using that "just once - and I'm right" standard.

Chuck: I guess I could have used the "gold standard-of-proof" of idiots and have said, "WILL be used" and allowed for no exceptions to the statement, but there are very few absolutes in social interactions. The statement was correct as written.

Chuck: "Let me clearly add that I have zero hostility towards any person, just the beliefs used drill holes in my boat."

MMX: It becomes difficult to argue that you have zero hostility for any person, when you adopt the "just once - and I'm right" standard.

Chuck: I think you are confusing yourself. If I say I have "zero" anything you just have to find one exception to prove the statement false, so how does your ""just once - and I'm right" standard apply to my saying I have ZERO hostility towards other people relative to their religious views?

MMX: Your argument would be more credible if you adopted a more stringent standard, such as either "It has to apply to 51% of believers, or else I'm wrong." or "It has to apply to 66% of believers, or else I'm wrong."

Chuck: Again, what do percentages have to do with my saying I have "zero" anything.

You're working awful hard to find something to criticize, and I'm having trouble following the point you're trying to make. So let me say it another way. I can like the person but dislike their actions or beliefs. We can be friends on many issues but disagree on many others without any animosity. For example, I'm a liberal democrat and have many conservative Republican friends with whom we debate politics and enjoy each other's company and exchanges. As all of this is in the vernacular I'm failing to understand the real point of your last two posts other than to be overly critical to the point of being ridiculous.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 8:16:26 PM PST
Chuck: "Could it be as simple as atheists don't believe in any deity? As for antitheism could it be as simple that we see and have internalized the harm religion does?"

MMX: Any line-of-"reasoning" that begins with the word "Could" and ends with a question-mark is called special-pleading.

Chuck: You can call it whatever you want, it's still a simple statement in the vernacular and understandable to people who are literate in the English language. Sorry if you are having difficulty with the question. Let me help you out; the answer to the question is either "yes" or "no." You have a 50-50 chance of getting it right. Flip a coin if you're still confused.

MMX: This is because anything with the word "Could" becomes inevitably correct, presuming an infinite sample size and infinite time to evolve.

Chuck: Could it also be because that the answer to the question is so obvious as to be rhetorical? Again, allow me to help you out. The answer is "yes."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 4:43:06 PM PST
Heaven101 says:
Bar: If anybody asks you how you'll recognize him when he returns, go with 'by the surprised look on his face and the improvisational nature of his skit'.

H101: Lol--that's kinda funny

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 4:40:39 PM PST
Cliff Sedge says:
I agree with the sentiment of the post.

Re the question 'what does it produce?', I'd have to say that the interaction enables me to see how my position holds up.

If it doesn't produce wry amusement from time to time, it ain't worth it.

I recently discovered a passage in the Bible (Matt 24:36) about the Second Coming.

'No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'

So Jesus doesn't know.

If anybody asks you how you'll recognize him when he returns, go with 'by the surprised look on his face and the improvisational nature of his skit'.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 4:17:25 PM PST
Joe W says:
They are all humans.

Posted on Dec 7, 2012 4:07:14 PM PST
King's Kid says:
You all (atheists) don't really think believers are all that alike, do you?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 3:11:17 PM PST
MMX says:
Chuck: "It does not matter if the person/deity is real or imaginary if the personage CAN BE USED to motivate followers to harm to society. To oppose anything harmful makes sense."

MMX: Any argument which hings on the verb "can" automatically uses as the gold standard-of-proof "If it happens JUST ONCE, then I'm right." But it's senseless to talk about something that affects billions of people, using that "just once - and I'm right" standard.

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

Chuck: "Let me clearly add that I have zero hostility towards any person, just the beliefs used drill holes in my boat."

MMX: It becomes difficult to argue that you have zero hostility for any person, when you adopt the "just once - and I'm right" standard. Your argument would be more credible if you adopted a more stringent standard, such as either "It has to apply to 51% of believers, or else I'm wrong." or "It has to apply to 66% of believers, or else I'm wrong."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 3:07:19 PM PST
MMX says:
Chuck: "Could it be as simple as atheists don't believe in any deity? As for antitheism could it be as simple that we see and have internalized the harm religion does?"

MMX: Any line-of-"reasoning" that begins with the word "Could" and ends with a question-mark is called special-pleading.

This is because anything with the word "Could" becomes inevitably correct, presuming an infinite sample size and infinite time to evolve.

For instance, the question "Could fiercesome raptors evolve into harmless turkeys?" is true based on the principle I outlined above. But it's also true because raptors have actually evolved into turkeys.

Posted on Dec 7, 2012 2:08:19 PM PST
jpl says:
Atheism vs. Christian. How is this productive?

jpl:
1. Fundamentalist Christians generally want the government to support its (the fundamentalists') viewpoint, which is, too often, inflexible when change is needed.
2. If a child is raised to be a Christian, he or she will likely remain so. (dahlingz, in your case, your child has a slightly better chance to ask you someday why you are a non-theist. There's a possibility he or she could become a non-theist.) What people learn in their formative years seldom changes.
3. Fundamentalists are irritating when they "cast their pearls before the swine."
4. I think the U.S. has a lot of closet non-theists.
5. Christians are raised to fear death, and therefore if they were true to their cause, they wouldn't care about anything and would welcome death. Life would have no urgency. But we don't see that. Believers fear death, as does everyone to some extent. But if you realize this is the only life, you may choose to have compassion for anyone and everyone. You can better understand why murderers murder, why rapists rape, and that no people are created equal in ability, intelligence, genetics, family upbringing, and peer pressure. It's difficult, because of all these factors, to really listen without red flags going up in your mind. That kind of mind can't learn and is often fearful, which leads to . . .
6. Fundamentalist inflexibility.

I think the world would run smoother if people learned to have compassion for one another regardless of ANYthing. For fundamentalists, religion can only create division, unless you belong to the correct religion. Those people can provide comfort for themselves, but in the back of their minds there will always be a nagging question. That's why they're fundamentalists. They have to be, in order to make themselves believe.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 2:00:10 PM PST
Max Flash says:
Your welcome!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 1:53:56 PM PST
'probabilist says:
Cool. Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 1:40:03 PM PST
Max Flash says:
Hi, prob -

It looks like it's all over YouTube. The version I first heard was by the "Maranatha Singers", I believe that was the first recording of it.

Max

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 1:22:48 PM PST
'probabilist says:
Clarissa wrote:

> The Bible does not have a key verse!

Heh. Many people would tell you that John 3:16 is the Bible's key verse.

I agree with them that John 3:16 is important. But I also say that you need Micah 6:8 first, to put it into the right context.

,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 1:20:59 PM PST
'probabilist says:
Hi, Max -

Sounds like a great song.

'prob

Posted on Dec 7, 2012 1:20:33 PM PST
'probabilist says:
--------------------------------------------------------
re: atheist vs. empiricist

An atheist may or may not be an empiricist. Atheists who hold to the views promoted in the Romantic era of philosophy act on their feelings and reject the rule of Reason. So being the one does not denote being the other.

We use words to communicate, so whatever you or I feel words should mean, the common parlance is the last arbiter. Dictionaries are nothing more or less than historical records of what most people who use a given word mean by it.

Do you believe marriage between races is miscegenation? For many decades that was the word for it. It means "the disgusting immoral union of people of different races." The opprobrium is built into the definition. Now we call it mixed-race marriage or simply "marriage" because we've thrown off the shackles of the white Southern quasiintellectuals who cooked up "miscegenation."

Ditto, to some extent, "atheism." Deconstruct it. It defines us as people who are not theists. It says NOTHING else about us. I'm not blonde haired. I'm not green-eyed. I'm not obese. I don't have Morton's Foot. I'm not Finnish. But you wouldn't call me ablonde, agreeneyed, aMortonsFooty, or aFinnish.

Meaning that so-called atheists have accepted the term of opprobrium layed on them by people who think all that's needed to know about us is what we aren't.

You can embrace that in the way that homosexuals embraced the word "queer." Or the way in which blacks may address each other with the N-word, though you probably shouldn't.

Or you can reject it as a misnomer, as I do. "Empiricist" says exactly what I actually am. You know a lot about me when I use that. I know very little about you when you use "atheist," because it isn't the name of a philosophy, and using it reinforces the theists' belief that what we are is indeed what we are not. The word expresses theistic jingoism.
--------------------------------------------------------

- Ehkzu,
on the thread titled "What Mitt Romney actually believes."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 10:54:18 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
Jack Vix says: Carlin? Are you sure that's not a misquote? Where does he say this?
>I've checked several different sources. Where and when he wrote it, I do not know, but it certainly sounds like him. What makes you thing that it's a misquote?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 9:21:03 AM PST
Bubba says:
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/atheism_is_a_non-prophet/188808.html

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 7:50:22 AM PST
Heaven101 says:
Max: When I was a youth pastor, I used to lead singing and would choose this song quite often. As an atheist,

H101: Oh...I see. That's too bad.

Posted on Dec 7, 2012 7:43:08 AM PST
B-Jak says:
It is not recognized as such, by Clarissa, herself.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 7:42:14 AM PST
Max Flash says:
probabilist wrote:

> Micah 6:8

There is a 'praise' song that uses Micah 6:8 as its lyrics. When I was a youth pastor, I used to lead singing and would choose this song quite often. As an atheist, it is one of the only Christian songs that still touches me deeply at times. So much so that it was very often included in my set list of songs when playing at local bars with my band a few years back.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 7:38:48 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 7, 2012 7:44:24 AM PST
'probabilist,

The Bible does not have a key verse!

Clarissa

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 7:21:27 AM PST
'probabilist says:
Clarissa wrote:

> Your particular favourite verse does not make of it a key.

Heh. Spend some time with it, let it sink in, and see where it leads you.

,.-)

______________________________
Micah 6:8

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2012 12:12:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 7, 2012 12:16:12 AM PST
'probabilist -

Take note :

Your particular favourite verse does not make of it a key.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  30
Total posts:  156
Initial post:  Dec 2, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions