Happy Atheist Forum

I've always been confused by the Christian concept of letting Jesus in your heart. What does that exactly mean, how does that work and  for what purpose? What I asked my Christian friend he told me that the Jesus in his heart guides him to make the right decisions about what is right or wrong. When I asked him whether that was not his own conscious talking he honestly said that "I made a good point and that he really doesn't know". That lead me to the conclusion that the whole idea of "letting Jesus in your heart" was not to be taken seriously. However since most Christians live by the idea that it must have a meaning for them, the whole concept of "Letting Jesus into your heart" still raises a lot of questions.

For example, since Christians claim that there has been only one historical Jesus then I must assume that the Jesus in the heart of one Christian must be the same as the Jesus that is in the heart of all other Christians. If that is indeed the case, then why does Jesus tells those different Christians to believe and do different things? That doesn't really make much sense to me. Another thing that bothers me is that since Jesus is the ultimate source of Christianity, the only person who knows everything what being a Christian is really all about, then why do Christians still have to go to church?  What is the point of listening to what priests are saying, when you already have the ultimate authority of Christianity carrying around you all the time and who can give you all the right answers?

Read 1 Corinthians 12.

Quote from: "Voter"Read 1 Corinthians 12.

So basically what 1 Corinthians 12 is saying is that the spirit comes in you, but each person receives different gifts from it. Like one person gets knowledge, the other wisdom, healing or teaching, etc. etc.  But, how could you identify that someone actually has received such a gift and is not just faking it?  We've seen for example a lot of faith-healers, miracle workers, prophets, etc. that were debunked as being ordinary charlatans. Since there are also many different ideas, believes, dogma's, etc. preached in the different Christian denominations, one might also assume that the gift of knowledge and wisdom is not distributed evenly among Christians. It could also mean the spirit of Jesus tells one Christian one thing and the other Christian something completely different. But that doesn't seem logical to me either.

Jesus speaks to you through your emotions. If you accepted Jesus into your heart and don't have any emotional communication from God, then you haven't gone through enough mental trama or conditioning to make yourself synthesize the emotions and believe they are from God.

Quote from: "Martian"Jesus speaks to you through your emotions. If you accepted Jesus into your heart and don't have any emotional communication from God, then you haven't gone through enough mental trama or conditioning to make yourself synthesize the emotions and believe they are from God.

Even if you've gone through the entire "process" how can you be sure that it is not Jesus talking, but your own conscience? OK, you could believe that it comes from Jesus, but how can you be sure? Before my Christian friend was converted to Christianity he also did good things. When he does the same good things now, he thinks that this is because Jesus is now in his heart. But I don't see or feel that he is anyway different than before. Assuming that it is possible to have Jesus (or his spirit, or whatever) in the heart, there is the still question why it operates different for different people. The spirit inside a Roman Catholic may say "Oh, those homosexuals are not really bad, we can just ignore them" while the spirit inside a newborn Christian may say "Burn those fags". Same spirit(?), at least according to 1 Corinthians 12, but a big difference. In the latter case one might also conclude that the newborn Christian doesn't have Jesus in his heart but an evil spirit. If Jesus would be in his heart and speaks to him through his emotions then his "personal" Jesus doesn't really give him the right moral "feedback". Maybe the  spirit gets broken, if you condition yourself too much  

QuoteEven if you've gone through the entire "process" how can you be sure that it is not Jesus talking, but your own conscience?

What, exactly, do you think Jesus and God are? They're externalized consciences constructed by a power structure in order to stay in power. Think about it... it's that "little voice" telling you what's right and wrong. That's the whole point. Some people just can't be bothered to create their own moral code they're happy with and need a rulebook.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"What, exactly, do you think Jesus and God are? They're externalized consciences constructed by a power structure in order to stay in power. Think about it... it's that "little voice" telling you what's right and wrong. That's the whole point. Some people just can't be bothered to create their own moral code they're happy with and need a rulebook.

Sure, I also share that common atheistic view. Nevertheless I'm really interested in the Christian point of view(s), because I find the topic so fascinating. The whole concept of Christianity is founded on accepting Jesus in your heart (and some other minor details, like admitting that he raised from the dead after three days, but that is just nitpicking in comparison). If millions of Christians admit that they have Jesus in their hearts, it just can't be a hollow phrase? Or are Christians only pretending that it is true? Like Martian already said, if you are conditioned well enough you may actually believe that it is true (even if it really isn't true).  Anyway I'm pretty much confused. Reading 1 Corinthians 12 clarified some of my questions, but raised at the same time even more questions.

Quote from: "Martian"Jesus speaks to you through your emotions. If you accepted Jesus into your heart and don't have any emotional communication from God, then you haven't gone through enough mental trama or conditioning to make yourself synthesize the emotions and believe they are from God.

Hmm... That sounds like some variety of schizophrenia or some other mental illness that gets a guy hospitalised...  :eek: "[/i]

Quote from: "Tom62"If millions of Christians admit that they have Jesus in their hearts, it just can't be a hollow phrase?

Why not?   The phrase "Eat At Joes: 10,000,000 fruit flies can't be wrong!" doesn't mean Joe's is great, it just means a bunch of flies eat there. We can't look at the current state of religiosity or Christianity in a vacuum; it has a long, strangled-root history with surprises, subversion, and coincidences that have made it the superpower it is today. The thing most Christians don't realize is that Christ had almost nothing to do with it.

QuoteOr are Christians only pretending that it is true? Like Martian already said, if you are conditioned well enough you may actually believe that it is true (even if it really isn't true).

I wouldn't say "pretending," as that implies knowledge of its falsehood. And yes, Martian is right: people can be conditioned to believe just about anything. Look at Stockholm syndrome. Look at operant conditioning. Look at collective obsessional behavior. Look at the bandwagon effect. Look at herd behavior.

QuoteAnyway I'm pretty much confused. Reading 1 Corinthians 12 clarified some of my questions, but raised at the same time even more questions.

I would warn against looking for answers in the Bible. At least, answers to questions raised by the book. As long as you're in the closed system of Christianity, it's fine, because everything has been constructed to fit. Bring any outside information or logic into the system, and it all falls down.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Voter"Read 1 Corinthians 12.

So basically what 1 Corinthians 12 is saying is that the spirit comes in you, but each person receives different gifts from it. Like one person gets knowledge, the other wisdom, healing or teaching, etc. etc.

Yep.

QuoteBut, how could you identify that someone actually has received such a gift and is not just faking it?  We've seen for example a lot of faith-healers, miracle workers, prophets, etc. that were debunked as being ordinary charlatans.

By the methods that these were debunked.

QuoteSince there are also many different ideas, believes, dogma's, etc. preached in the different Christian denominations, one might also assume that the gift of knowledge and wisdom is not distributed evenly among Christians. It could also mean the spirit of Jesus tells one Christian one thing and the other Christian something completely different. But that doesn't seem logical to me either.

Why can't knowledge and wisdom be distributed unevenly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote_(comics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote_(comics))

The Egyptians believed your intelligence and thought came from your heart and god(s) spoke to you through it. Maybe this phrase is a spin off of that thought process?

Quote from: "Msblue"The Egyptians believed your intelligence and thought came from your heart and god(s) spoke to you through it. Maybe this phrase is a spin off of that thought process?

Yes , people have been thinking that for a very long time. A pity that the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the spirit of Jesus didn't bring the wisdom and knowledge that wisdom and knowledge comes from the brain instead of the heart. What is the point of those useless gifts, if you can't rely on them. Based on all the inputs received so far on my questions, I can only conclude that the whole idea of having Jesus in your heart is nothing but superstitious nonsense.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Msblue"The Egyptians believed your intelligence and thought came from your heart and god(s) spoke to you through it. Maybe this phrase is a spin off of that thought process?

Yes , people have been thinking that for a very long time. A pity that the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the spirit of Jesus didn't bring the wisdom and knowledge that wisdom and knowledge comes from the brain instead of the heart. What is the point of those useless gifts, if you can't rely on them.

Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

Quote from: "Voter"Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.

Oh bloody hell.  I knew I was doing something wrong!  Note to self: heart candy, not brain candy; that's the ticket.

Do atheists have a lower birth rate?  Who even thought to study that?  Is a higher birth rate better in an environment where overpopulation is becoming an issue?  This was such a fascinating little side-point.  I couldn't help but wonder how I fit, personally, into the bigger picture.  The 2000 US census I found (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf) reported the average number of children per family in the US at 0.90.  Among families with at least one child, the average number was 1.86.  I've got 2, so I'm at least ahead of the averages, although I have no idea how this breaks down by theist/atheist.  Which is funny to even think about.

Anyhow, I'm glad I at least had children in whole-numbers.  .9 of a child, or .86, even, sounds disturbing and weird.  Now, who let the .75-of-a-dog back in the house?  

Quote from: "Voter"Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.

I don't give candy on valentine's day. I take my wife out to eat and give her flowers. Atheists have a lower birth rate because we know about birth control. you should try it.

Quote from: "Voter"Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

Hey, I'd LOVE candy in a brain-shaped box!  And my hubby know it, too.  LOL!

And atheists have a lower birth rate because we're responsible breeders.  We know that, in this day and age, our planetary resources are being strained and fewer children per family can make a difference.  We aren't out to single-handed repopulate the earth.  The quiverfull people frighten me.

As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

Voter, you put such stock in population numbers.  Why?  Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?  If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase?  What will be the end result?

Also, there are a lot of us that really aren't "systemic" atheists.  Whether or not I'm outbred by Muslims hardly makes any difference as to whether or not there is a god.  Granted, the power of a religion appears to be measured in the faith of its followers: more followers, more faith, more powerful religion.  It should be easy to see that atheism is different.  As an atheist, I may have a wish that less people were religious because I feel it would make the world make more sense to me, or because of my social or political philosophies, but in the end I'm hardly worried that the truth will change based on the number of people shouting something different.

I can understand why competing beliefs could be threatening to a religious follower, though.  Afterall, when enough people leave a religion it loses its status as "religion" and becomes "mythology".  Just try to understand that atheism is not a religion, and all this population stuff should make more sense.

QuoteVoter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

QuoteIf there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

QuoteAlso, there are a lot of us that really aren't "systemic" atheists. Whether or not I'm outbred by Muslims hardly makes any difference as to whether or not there is a god. Granted, the power of a religion appears to be measured in the faith of its followers: more followers, more faith, more powerful religion. It should be easy to see that atheism is different. As an atheist, I may have a wish that less people were religious because I feel it would make the world make more sense to me, or because of my social or political philosophies, but in the end I'm hardly worried that the truth will change based on the number of people shouting something different.

I guess my point was made to any systemic atheists that might be reading. Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

Quote from: "Voter"As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

Atheism is growing so this is debatable.  Assuming your right, breeding is not the answer. Helping people let go of their superstitious beliefs is a start. Several users here used to be theists.

Effects of overpopulation

Some problems associated with or exacerbated by human overpopulation:

    * Inadequate fresh water[127] for drinking water use as well as sewage treatment and effluent discharge. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, use energy-expensive desalination to solve the problem of water shortages.[147][148]
    * Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels[149]
    * Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise pollution. Once a country has industrialized and become wealthy, a combination of government regulation and technological innovation causes pollution to decline substantially, even as the population continues to grow.[131]
    * Deforestation and loss of ecosystems[150] that sustain global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance; about eight million hectares of forest are lost each year.[151]
    * Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming[152] [153]
    * Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification[154] Deforestation and desertification can be reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is successful even while the human population continues to grow.[155]
    * Mass species extinctions.[156] from reduced habitat in tropical forests due to slash-and-burn techniques that sometimes are practiced by shifting cultivators, especially in countries with rapidly expanding rural populations; present extinction rates may be as high as 140,000 species lost per year.[157] The IUCN Red List lists a total of 698 animal species having gone extinct during recorded human history.[158]
    * High infant and child mortality.[159] High rates of infant mortality are caused by poverty. Rich countries with high population densities have low rates of infant mortality. [6]
    * Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics and pandemics[160] For many environmental and social reasons, including overcrowded living conditions, malnutrition and inadequate, inaccessible, or non-existent health care, the poor are more likely to be exposed to infectious diseases.[161]
    * Starvation, malnutrition[126] or poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets). Famine is aggravated by poverty. Rich countries with high population densities do not have famine.[162][163]
    * Poverty coupled with inflation in some regions and a resulting low level of capital formation. Poverty and inflation are aggravated by bad government and bad economic policies. Many countries with high population densities have eliminated absolute poverty and keep their inflation rates very low.[97]
    * Low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations[164]
    * Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw sewage[165] and solid waste disposal
    * Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to survive[166]
    * Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfare[167]
Full article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Quote from: "Voter"As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

My parents were both conservative Christians... we do not see eye to eye on any religious issue and precious few political ones.  

I've been saying for years now that liberals and atheists are doomed to die out for just that reason.  The people having the huge "Jesus in my heart" families (10+ kids) are evangelical/fundies who homeschool a Christian curriculum and discourage freethought, rational thought and logic that doesn't conform to their religion.  The chances that any of the kids, much less a majority, won't follow in their parents' footsteps are slim, and the chances that they will have huge, homeschooled families themselves is HUGE.  

THe majority of the families in my immediate geographic area (and this is based on the 70 or so families at my son's school and my immediate neighborhood) have 3 or more kids, many more than 5.  This is a mix of evangelical and Mormon families for the most part.

Then there is me and the 3 atheist families with whom I socialize.  I have 1 child, 2 of my friends have 2 kids and one has 3 (all of them born before she became an atheist... she was Mormon and had always planned on having 6 or more kids before finding logic and rational thought).

So yes... I agree with you.  By being responsible, we are dooming our atheist cause to die out in a few generations unless more kids grow up to realize their parents brainwashed them and they can see that reality, while much more grim, is preferable to the life-long fairytale with which they were brainwashed.  It took me 30 years to shake free of it... so I know it can be done.

Nice post on overpopulation issues, Msblue.

Voter,

Quote from: "Voter"Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

I do care - I care about whether what I believe or don't believe is correct or not.  I care about what truth is.  I don't care as much about the effects of belief.  It is an interesting topic, but I don't believe things because of the effects that the beliefs have on me.  What I'm getting at is that I've been reading a lot of these comments on the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc.  I'm thinking, who cares?  Even if these effects are all beneficial in some way (which I'm really not certain about and given to doubt strongly - there's big correlation/causation fallacy lurking out here somewhere) --- that hardly makes religious beliefs true.  For example, what if I determined that people, predominantly children, who believe that Santa Claus is real turn out to say they are happier, do better in school, and get along better with their parents.  Must Santa be real because of this?  Should we teach in school that Santa is real because of the beneficial effects of such belief?  Of course not.  In fact, I would think everyone was at least a little bummed out when they realized that Santa probably wasn't real after all.  Did we just go back to believing in him anyway?  No.  Of course not.  Why?  Because we don't believe he is real.  No matter if we were happier when we believed.

In short,

Quote from: "George Bernard Shaw"The fact that a believer may be happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk is happier than a sober man.

Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations?  If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful?  Because it is experiencing the largest population growth?  Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

I can only presume that you believe your religion is true, and this is probably the most important reason why you follow it.  If so, would it matter to you if Muslims were having more babies?  Probably not, right?

Will atheists die out?  This one, at least, surely will.  I want my tombstone to read: "Here lies an atheist: all dressed up and no place to go".  

Quote from: "Voter"Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

Many ancient civilizations regarded the heart as the center of intellect and intuition. From biblical times till the middle ages, people truly believed that the heart was the seat of emotions, particularly love. It was not a figure of speech in those days.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Voter"Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  :borg: I thought those kind of people went extinct with the industrial revolution. Apparently, I was wrong.

QuoteWhat I'm getting at is that I've been reading a lot of these comments on the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc. I'm thinking, who cares?

I'm thinking, then don't bother responding, but I guess that's just me.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteWhat I'm getting at is that I've been reading a lot of these comments on the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc. I'm thinking, who cares?

I'm thinking, then don't bother responding, but I guess that's just me.

I gave you too much credit earlier on in your responses because you gave intelligent, compassionate and caring answers... then you have to go off with something like this and it's all out the window.

I hope you didn't stop reading there because Steve had a great point.

Sorry, but I get tired of the big post with the embedded But I don't really care. I find it disrespectful. Maybe you could try putting yourself in my shoes before making judgment.

Quote from: "Voter"Maybe you could try putting yourself in my shoes before making judgment.

Man, I love hearing that aimed at members of the single most hated minority in the country.

Honestly, Voter, you found my posts disrespectful?  I hardly think that's very fair.  I certainly didn't claim any personal insult at reading comments like "you are dooming yourselves to failure".  I haven't made any personal attacks or disparaging remarks about you --- I've only disagreed with you.

Regardless - I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.  That certainly wasn't my intention.  Regarding the "who cares" phrase, I think you are misinterpreting it.  Allow me to re-phrase?

"I've been reading a lot of these comments of the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc.  I'm thinking, is this the relevant issue?"

In other words, atheism is only doomed to failure by being outbred (isn't this just a tad funny?  Come on, isn't there any humor left around here?!?) if atheism embodies a purpose of de-converting religious people around the world until there are more atheists or no theists or whatever.  While this is no doubt a purpose of some atheists, call them activist atheists, it is certainly not a part of atheism as a concept.  I'm disagreeing with your implied statement that atheism contains a purpose to de-convert religious followers and is failing at this purpose by being outbred (A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ..... Baby Wars ).  This is why I'm responding --- not because I don't care what you wrote.

Hopefully this made some sense and you see where I'm coming from.  What could be more respectful that reading your comments and addressing them?  Surely I don't have to agree to demonstrate respect?

Ignoring, again, the problem with implying causation from correlation (are happy people religious, or are religious people happy?), the reason I'm bothering to respond to you is that I don't think the "beneficial effects" argument is necessarily the most relevant/important/some-adjective-that-isnt-disrespectful issue regarding faith or lack thereof.  I specifically tried to make this point by asking the questions:

Quote from: "SteveS"Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations? If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful? Because it is experiencing the largest population growth? Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

Quote from: "Voter"Sorry, but I get tired of the big post with the embedded But I don't really care. I find it disrespectful. Maybe you could try putting yourself in my shoes before making judgment.

Excuse me... my stating that someone has a good point in a post directed AT YOU is rude and judgemental but you telling him to just not post because you don't like to read a longer post isn't?   :hmm:

You probably think that because we even HAVE this forum, you're being persecuted.  

Quote from: "SteveS"Honestly, Voter, you found my posts disrespectful?  I hardly think that's very fair.  

Not disrespectful as in insulting. Disrespectful of my time. I made two substantive responses which you ignored:

Quote

Quote from: "SteveS"Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

Quote

Quote from: "SteveS"If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

I then politely noted that we don't have much to discuss on this topic:

Quote from: "Voter"I guess my point was made to any systemic atheists that might be reading. Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

Your next response ignored the substantive points and only addressed:

QuoteNot sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Excuse me... my stating that someone has a good point in a post directed AT YOU is rude

I didn't say or imply you were rude. I was calm and polite.

Quoteand judgemental

No, your stating that someone else had a good point was not judgmental of me. It was the part where you said, "I gave you too much credit earlier on in your responses because you gave intelligent, compassionate and caring answers... then you have to go off with something like this and it's all out the window," that was judgmental.

Quotebut you telling him to just not post because you don't like to read a longer post isn't?   :hmm:

I didn't say that I wasn't being rude. See my last post to SteveS. At first I politely pointed out that we probably didn't have anything to discuss on this subject. He then addressed me again but ignored my substantive points. At that point, yes, I ratcheted things up a notch and was a little rude. So what?

QuoteYou probably think that because we even HAVE this forum, you're being persecuted.  

Why is that probable?

I sit here, gentle readers, in shocked bewilderment.  I'm sorry, Voter, but I'm just having trouble with your reaction.  The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks, so I'd be more than happy to address your concerns.  Although, I would appreciate if you would please consider doing likewise.

In the spirit of discourse, then, let's work through these.

Quote from: "Voter"Not disrespectful as in insulting. Disrespectful of my time. I made two substantive responses which you ignored:

Let's deal with this, then.  Topics that I've failed to address:

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "SteveS"Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

and

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "SteveS"If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

I felt that MsBlue had addressed the issues of population sufficiently in her post, and said as much.  Please note that I have not accused you of being insulting, through disrespect of time, by not answering her post, although I find no such response to exist.  Nor have I accused you of this although you have ignored twice a series of questions I have presented you.  But it's okay, I'm going to post them a third time hoping that this spirit of cooperation will illicit a response.

Okay.  What did I personally not address?  Two issues:

Quote from: "Voter"Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

No doubt, a country with continually decreasing population would seem destined to failure.  If at no other point, that certainly at the point at which it hits zero.  But, please consider that I didn't say a country with a decreasing population, I specifically said a country that "doesn't have increasing population".  What's wrong with equilibrium?   Does a country have to have increasing population to be successful, or is a stable population okay?  Seems to me a stable population can work just fine.

Quote from: "Voter"Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

Okay --- by "end result of population increase", I'm think a little longer term here.  When the populations spill over and fill up the flat or decreasing ones, now all the nations will be going through population increase.  What is the result of this?  I can't see how anyone can find this situation desirable.  What happens when the population of the planet exceeds the resources required to sustain the population?  Nothing pleasant would be my guess.

Alright.  So, why were we talking about populations anyway?  I saw this as ancillary to an underlying point.  You said that by becoming "out-populated" atheism would "fail".  I pointed out that atheism does not intrinsically contain a doctrine of population-domination.  I also pointed out that the truth of a belief, or lack there of, is probably more important to most people than most other considerations of the belief.  I would truly appreciate some acknowledgment of this point, so here it goes again for the third time:

Quote from: "Voter"Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations? If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful? Because it is experiencing the largest population growth? Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "rlrose328"

QuoteYou probably think that because we even HAVE this forum, you're being persecuted.  

Why is that probable?

In my experience, people who respond as you have here, not just to me but others, are usually Christians... and most times, either evangelical or fundamentalist.  That is merely an observation, not a scientific conclusion.  And based on my observations, evangelicals and fundamentalists consider atheists an affront to their very belief system.  And based on that observation, quite a few evangelicals and fundies feel persecuted when we speak out for our non-belief.

That's why I called it probable in a personal observation manner, not a scientific one.

Because I hate feeling like I'm on the defensive whenever I post a response to you, I won't answer anything else in your response.

QuoteI sit here, gentle readers, in shocked bewilderment. I'm sorry, Voter, but I'm just having trouble with your reaction. The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks, so I'd be more than happy to address your concerns.

Actually you've demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

QuoteI felt that MsBlue had addressed the issues of population sufficiently in her post, and said as much. Please note that I have not accused you of being insulting, through disrespect of time, by not answering her post, although I find no such response to exist.

I felt that MsBlue's statements on overpopulation were obvious and off-topic. Note that you have to respond to the left, respond to the right, when you're the only, or one of the very few conservative Christians on an atheist board (apologies to J. Buffett). Once I'm talking to two or three people on a thread, the next needs to add something particularly interesting to get a response. That's why it's frustrating to devote time to some and ignore others, only to find that those in the discussion don't really care, or are only talking for entertainment value. I would have preferred to devote time to people who do care.

QuoteNo doubt, a country with continually decreasing population would seem destined to failure. If at no other point, that certainly at the point at which it hits zero. But, please consider that I didn't say a country with a decreasing population, I specifically said a country that "doesn't have increasing population". What's wrong with equilibrium? Does a country have to have increasing population to be successful, or is a stable population okay? Seems to me a stable population can work just fine.

If you're stable and your neighbors are increasing, they'll eventually want your stuff. So, no, a stable population won't work in the long term unless you convince everyone else to do likewise.

QuoteOkay --- by "end result of population increase", I'm think a little longer term here. When the populations spill over and fill up the flat or decreasing ones, now all the nations will be going through population increase. What is the result of this? I can't see how anyone can find this situation desirable. What happens when the population of the planet exceeds the resources required to sustain the population? Nothing pleasant would be my guess.

War, famine and disease until the population is sustainable again, obviously.

QuoteAlright. So, why were we talking about populations anyway? I saw this as ancillary to an underlying point. You said that by becoming "out-populated" atheism would "fail". I pointed out that atheism does not intrinsically contain a doctrine of population-domination.

And I politely, than more firmly, pointed out that I was addressing people who would like to see atheism grow, and wasn't interested in the tangent. Now I'm just not answering because I don't want to reinforce the begging and whining.

BTW, anyone as shocked as me that I haven't been banned yet?!?

Quote from: "SteveS"I sit here, gentle readers, in shocked bewilderment.  I'm sorry, Voter, but I'm just having trouble with your reaction.  The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks, so I'd be more than happy to address your concerns.  Although, I would appreciate if you would please consider doing likewise.

In the spirit of discourse, then, let's work through these.

Quote from: "Voter"Not disrespectful as in insulting. Disrespectful of my time. I made two substantive responses which you ignored:

Let's deal with this, then.  Topics that I've failed to address:

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "SteveS"Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

and

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "SteveS"If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

I felt that MsBlue had addressed the issues of population sufficiently in her post, and said as much.  Please note that I have not accused you of being insulting, through disrespect of time, by not answering her post, although I find no such response to exist.  Nor have I accused you of this although you have ignored twice a series of questions I have presented you.  But it's okay, I'm going to post them a third time hoping that this spirit of cooperation will illicit a response.

Okay.  What did I personally not address?  Two issues:

Quote from: "Voter"Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

No doubt, a country with continually decreasing population would seem destined to failure.  If at no other point, that certainly at the point at which it hits zero.  But, please consider that I didn't say a country with a decreasing population, I specifically said a country that "doesn't have increasing population".  What's wrong with equilibrium?   Does a country have to have increasing population to be successful, or is a stable population okay?  Seems to me a stable population can work just fine.

Quote from: "Voter"Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

Okay --- by "end result of population increase", I'm think a little longer term here.  When the populations spill over and fill up the flat or decreasing ones, now all the nations will be going through population increase.  What is the result of this?  I can't see how anyone can find this situation desirable.  What happens when the population of the planet exceeds the resources required to sustain the population?  Nothing pleasant would be my guess.

Alright.  So, why were we talking about populations anyway?  I saw this as ancillary to an underlying point.  You said that by becoming "out-populated" atheism would "fail".  I pointed out that atheism does not intrinsically contain a doctrine of population-domination.  I also pointed out that the truth of a belief, or lack there of, is probably more important to most people than most other considerations of the belief.  I would truly appreciate some acknowledgment of this point, so here it goes again for the third time:

Quote from: "Voter"Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations? If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful? Because it is experiencing the largest population growth? Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

Been traveling a bit and I just got around to reading this entire thread. Although it has veered off the original topic (and possibly should be split to a new area) I have to give my kudos to Steve on this. You have handled this with great decorum and civility. I too, am honestly surprised by Voter's reaction and seemingly newly acquired indifference to his own rudeness. I have to disagree with the assertion that Steve should not have been able to comment. He explained himself quite well and that should have settled it, in my opinion.

How about getting back on track here as soon as possible. Follow Steve's lead and resist the urge to gravitate toward rudeness?

Quote from: "Voter"Actually you've demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

Voter, how is that relevant to how you have been addressed in this thread? He did not attack you at all.

Quote from: "Voter"I felt that MsBlue's statements on overpopulation were obvious and off-topic. Note that you have to respond to the left, respond to the right, when you're the only, or one of the very few conservative Christians on an atheist board (apologies to J. Buffett). Once I'm talking to two or three people on a thread, the next needs to add something particularly interesting to get a response. That's why it's frustrating to devote time to some and ignore others, only to find that those in the discussion don't really care, or are only talking for entertainment value. I would have preferred to devote time to people who do care.

While I agree that it is difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating to keep track of all the posts that people make, it would seem that you made an assumption about Steve's posts that just is not correct. And he explained himself to adequately to you. Yet you continued to be the one being rude to him.

Quote from: "Voter"And I politely, than more firmly, pointed out that I was addressing people who would like to see atheism grow, and wasn't interested in the tangent. Now I'm just not answering because I don't want to reinforce the begging and whining.

It's a discussion board and you brought up points that people wanted to discuss. It's my job to see that tangents get split off, as I indicated would possibly happen if the thread didn't get back on track.

Quote from: "Voter"BTW, anyone as shocked as me that I haven't been banned yet?!?

Why are you shocked? So far, I've only seen a need for you to show a little bit of human compassion and not to get worked up over Steve's posts.

QuoteVoter, how is that relevant to how you have been addressed in this thread? He did not attack you at all.

It's in direct response to his claim, in this thread, "The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks."

QuoteWhile I agree that it is difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating to keep track of all the posts that people make, it would seem that you made an assumption about Steve's posts that just is not correct.

What assumption is that?

QuoteAnd he explained himself to adequately to you. Yet you continued to be the one being rude to him.

Yes, I sometimes get rude when I'm badgered to participate in a discussion which I have clearly indicated I have no interest in.

QuoteIt's a discussion board and you brought up points that people wanted to discuss.

They're free to discuss tangents. I'm free to bow out - or should be.

QuoteWhy are you shocked?

Cause admin had an itchy trigger finger last time I was here.

QuoteI have to disagree with the assertion that Steve should not have been able to comment.

Huh?

Quote from: "Voter"I felt that MsBlue's statements on overpopulation were obvious and off-topic. Note that you have to respond to the left, respond to the right, when you're the only, or one of the very few conservative Christians on an atheist board (apologies to J. Buffett).

I don't see how bringing up the issue of overpopulation was off topic. I do realize now that even though I brought it up to make a point, it turned the thread in a different direction.
These were the posts that led to my post on overpopulation, especially the part about responsibility dooming us to failure.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Msblue"The Egyptians believed your intelligence and thought came from your heart and god(s) spoke to you through it. Maybe this phrase is a spin off of that thought process?

Yes , people have been thinking that for a very long time. A pity that the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the spirit of Jesus didn't bring the wisdom and knowledge that wisdom and knowledge comes from the brain instead of the heart. What is the point of those useless gifts, if you can't rely on them.

Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

Quote from: "Voter"As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

QuoteI don't see how bringing up the issue of overpopulation was off topic.

My points regarded group selection within a species, not effects of overpopulation of a species in a location.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteVoter, how is that relevant to how you have been addressed in this thread? He did not attack you at all.

It's in direct response to his claim, in this thread, "The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks."

QuoteWhile I agree that it is difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating to keep track of all the posts that people make, it would seem that you made an assumption about Steve's posts that just is not correct.

What assumption is that?

QuoteAnd he explained himself to adequately to you. Yet you continued to be the one being rude to him.

Yes, I sometimes get rude when I'm badgered to participate in a discussion which I have clearly indicated I have no interest in.

QuoteIt's a discussion board and you brought up points that people wanted to discuss.

They're free to discuss tangents. I'm free to bow out - or should be.

QuoteWhy are you shocked?

Cause admin had an itchy trigger finger last time I was here.

Voter, all you need to do is abide by the forum rules. As to this message of yours:

 - You did assert that SteveS personally attacked you. He did not. That is a false accusation. You were the one who began to become rude in the thread.
 - You assumed he was attacking you and not your argument. Also a mistake.
 - You do not need to resort to rudeness because you don't like that people want to discuss issues. (see Matthew 5:43)
 - Itchy trigger finger? People are warned or banned if they disregard forum rules. If you don't like it, don't participate.

Now, that's it. Please get back on track and be respectful of the other members and feel free to continue as a active member. And do not whine about being picked on or singled out because you are not an atheist, since it isn't true. I saw that in the other thread. Anyone I see, who acts as you have, done will get the same warning. I moderate fairly, with no bias toward faith or non-faith.

Anyone else involved in this discussion needs to also be aware that sarcasm, rudeness, or personal attacks are not beneficial, will only inflame problems, and will not be tolerated. Keep it meaningful, or bow out.

Quote from: "McQ"You did assert that SteveS personally attacked you. He did not. That is a false accusation.

Quote from: "Voter"Actually you've [SteveS] demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

Quote from: "SteveS"Okay. Apparently, I did say "deliberately misleading". I should have checked, my memory is obviously not infallible, and I'm sorry. Bad on me --- again, I will offer you another apology if this came across as rude.

QuoteAnd do not whine about being picked on or singled out because you are not an atheist, since it isn't true. I saw that in the other thread. Anyone I see, who acts as you have, done will get the same warning. I moderate fairly, with no bias toward faith or non-faith.

I didn't see SteveS get a warning for calling me deliberately misleading. SteveS seems to be an atheist.

QuoteItchy trigger finger?

Yes. There are plenty of similar sites, and all that I've been to are more tolerant.

QuoteIf you don't like it, don't participate.

That's what I did last time, and if you keep it up I will again. I'm used to some amount of antagonism between Bible-believing Christians and atheists and have no problem with it, but there's no need for me to put up with double standards by the mods. Too bad, since, like a train wreck, people complain about me, but threads I participate in get lots of posts and views.

Quote from: "Voter"Yes. There are plenty of similar sites, and all that I've been to are more tolerant.

If you feel the board is intolerant, treating you unfairly or you simply don't like the way it's run, you are free to not participate. I could be mistaken, but I'm going to assume no one here begged you to sign up.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "McQ"You did assert that SteveS personally attacked you. He did not. That is a false accusation.

Quote from: "Voter"Actually you've [SteveS] demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

Quote from: "SteveS"Okay. Apparently, I did say "deliberately misleading". I should have checked, my memory is obviously not infallible, and I'm sorry. Bad on me --- again, I will offer you another apology if this came across as rude.

QuoteAnd do not whine about being picked on or singled out because you are not an atheist, since it isn't true. I saw that in the other thread. Anyone I see, who acts as you have, done will get the same warning. I moderate fairly, with no bias toward faith or non-faith.

I didn't see SteveS get a warning for calling me deliberately misleading. SteveS seems to be an atheist.

QuoteItchy trigger finger?

He realized his mistake and on his own good conscience, apologized, and continued the discussion in the spirit of genuine interest. You, on the other hand, are now trying to play the "martyr" card. There is no bias here. It exists only as your opinion, and you are mistaken.

Quote from: "Voter"Yes. There are plenty of similar sites, and all that I've been to are more tolerant.

I am not being intolerant of anything except your disregard for etiquette and the rules of this forum. I am not interested in your opinion of other boards and how you think we compare.  

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteIf you don't like it, don't participate.

That's what I did last time, and if you keep it up I will again. I'm used to some amount of antagonism between Bible-believing Christians and atheists and have no problem with it, but there's no need for me to put up with double standards by the mods. Too bad, since, like a train wreck, people complain about me, but threads I participate in get lots of posts and views.

What kind of a threat is it to tell me if I "keep it up I will again"? Keep what up? And you will what again? Not participate? I don't care if you participate or not. I only care that you abide by the forum rules. And since you are so sensitive about personal attacks, why do you think accusing me of having a double standard is ok? That's a personal attack. For one, it isn't true. For another thing, it gets you nowhere, except looking like you are trying to continue to play the martyr card. I've been tolerant of your outbursts and accusations here, or you would have already been banned. Moreover, SteveS has shown the highest level of tolerance and patience with you, yet you are still complaining and using him as an example of someone who should be warned about rudeness.

A lot of threads get views and posts, not just the ones you participate in. And do you measure your worth here by the amount of discord you can bring about? That's not a very christian attitude.

I suggest you try moving on from this and getting along with the other members. Do not continue to derail this thread any further. This needs to get back to the OP and discussion.

QuoteHe realized his mistake and on his own good conscience, apologized, and continued the discussion in the spirit of genuine interest. You, on the other hand, are now trying to play the "martyr" card. There is no bias here. It exists only as your opinion, and you are mistaken.

So are you now admitting that I was personally attacked? If so, your false accusation charge against me was, itself, a false accusation.

QuoteI am not being intolerant of anything except your disregard for etiquette and the rules of this forum.

Exactly! If you were also intolerant of others' disregard for etiquette, there wouldn't be a problem.

QuoteMoreover, SteveS has shown the highest level of tolerance and patience with you, yet you are still complaining and using him as an example of someone who should be warned about rudeness.

And I've supported that position, which is more than you've done. Saying that someone is deliberately misleading is pretty much calling them a liar, or at best accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. Now, if you have cause, that's fine. If not, that's extremely disrespectful, much worse than any unprovoked attack I've made in these threads. To his credit, when presented with the evidence, SteveS retracted and offered apology. I've also presented evidence that your enforcement of the rules is biased or arbitrary. Unlike SteveS, you continue the proclamations of fairness. Fox News can proclaim that they're fair and balanced as much as they want, but the evidence shows otherwise. Same thing here.

Quote from: "Voter"So are you now admitting that I was personally attacked? If so, your false accusation charge against me was, itself, a false accusation.

No, not at all. I agree that you got an apology from someone who wanted to keep the level of discourse civil. I don't think that what SteveS did was against forum rules, despite what you've said. And if it had been, he posted a retraction and apology before it became a problem and derailed an entire thread. I did not need to do anything as a moderator at that point. Despite this, you have continued to attack others and derail the thread, instead of stopping and moving on. You yourself admitted to being rude, and admitted that you use it as a way to react when you feel you are being badgered. Yet you offer no apology or retraction. Who is breaking forum rules? You are.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteI am not being intolerant of anything except your disregard for etiquette and the rules of this forum.

Exactly! If you were also intolerant of others' disregard for etiquette, there wouldn't be a problem.

If you have paid any attention to this board as a whole, you would know that I play no favorites. You ignore this and continue to grouse about unfair moderation. The only reason there is a problem here is because of your continued accusations and inability to move on.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteMoreover, SteveS has shown the highest level of tolerance and patience with you, yet you are still complaining and using him as an example of someone who should be warned about rudeness.

And I've supported that position, which is more than you've done. Saying that someone is deliberately misleading is pretty much calling them a liar, or at best accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. Now, if you have cause, that's fine. If not, that's extremely disrespectful, much worse than any unprovoked attack I've made in these threads. To his credit, when presented with the evidence, SteveS retracted and offered apology. I've also presented evidence that your enforcement of the rules is biased or arbitrary.

No, you haven't. You've just felt that you were singled out because I didn't give SteveS a warning. There was no need. He corrected himself before there was any need to step in. And as i said already, there was no need to even step in in the first place. He stated what he felt you were doing. He didn't get rude or become belligerent, as you have done.

Quote from: "Voter"Unlike SteveS, you continue the proclamations of fairness. Fox News can proclaim that they're fair and balanced as much as they want, but the evidence shows otherwise. Same thing here.

And you can continue to say that you think it is unfair, but you have presented no evidence for it, despite your claim. All you have done is call attention to your own disregard for the forum and your misperception of its moderation. You can use all the bad analogies you want, but it doesn't make you right. And you will notice that none of this has been even an official warning from any of the Mods or Admins. If you continue to derail this thread, however, a warning will be issued.

You have the opportunity to continue to be a participating member of this forum. I prefer to keep members here and see meaningful discourse. It's up to you to if you want to be a meaningful part of the forum or not. And ultimately I would guess that both your time and mine would be better spent on other things.

LOL, just noticed your subnic: "Foolproof and incapable of error." Guess that says it all. Later.

Quote from: "Voter"LOL, just noticed your subnic: "Foolproof and incapable of error." Guess that says it all. Later.

Looks like someone's never seen 2001.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Voter"LOL, just noticed your subnic: "Foolproof and incapable of error." Guess that says it all. Later.

Looks like someone's never seen 2001.

ROFL!  One of the best movie quotes ever...  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Voter"LOL, just noticed your subnic: "Foolproof and incapable of error." Guess that says it all. Later.

Looks like someone's never seen 2001.

This is probably the appropriate time to admit that I have not seen 2001 either...but I still knew the quote wasn't meant to be a statement of fact.

Quite a bit of trolling going on around here.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Voter"LOL, just noticed your subnic: "Foolproof and incapable of error." Guess that says it all. Later.

Looks like someone's never seen 2001.

This is probably the appropriate time to admit that I have not seen 2001 either...but I still knew the quote wasn't meant to be a statement of fact.

Yeah, in fact it's a bit of an inside joke in my family because I'm such an Uber-fan of 2001. I love the character of HAL and my wife said she was going to start calling me HAL. I asked her if it was because I am, "...by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error." Using the line from the movie, of course. Her answer was, "No. It's because you're evil!" LOL!

OK, what were we talking about here? Oh yeah, Jesus in My Heart. I remember thinking that it was a very different thing for all of the born again christians I knew. For most it seemed like a very emotional thing, and not a solid thought process. Then you had my catholic family who kept him in them by eating him each week.  

I don't know, it's such an ambiguous thing. A lot of different interpretations of what it is, and each group thinks the others are wrong, of course.

I don't want Jesus in my heart. Unless he's very tiny and eats cholesterol. Then I'd think about it.

Quote from: "McQ"Yeah, in fact it's a bit of an inside joke in my family because I'm such an Uber-fan of 2001.

I think it's available on Bluray now. *drool*

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I don't want Jesus in my heart. Unless he's very tiny and eats cholesterol. Then I'd think about it.

That is just precious!

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I don't want Jesus in my heart. Unless he's very tiny and eats cholesterol. Then I'd think about it.

That is just precious!

I want a fat-eating Jesus in my stomach. Then I can stop going to gym and double my intake of burgers.