Happy Atheist Forum

Let us think, and try help the desperately stuck in the gospel of JC of Nazareth:

God cannot save all sinners**, and because of that he will have to make new heavens and a new Earth!

** Apparently, he could if he wanted, but for some private pride, he prefers, at a later stage - PLAN B, C or D, who knows! -  to INCINERATE the entire Cosmos and then restart the process, by creating everything afresh; new heavens and a new Earth!!

What do you say to this to help the gospel's victims?...

You see, here we are living in this terribly disadvantageous primitive planet, where the terrible struggles of life hardens one's heart and leads one to sin against the Creator of this mess!
The unfortunate life we are forced to live down here on Earth disturbs and upsets the same Creator, which then envisages a PLAN to rescue the situation.
But since the PLAN was a failure from its outset, whereby not all human beings agreed with it and consequently rejected the hurried Saviour, the PLAN was catalogued as a failure.
Since that hurt the personal pride of the Planner - the Creator of this terrible situation - another PLAN was introduced, whereby TOTAL INCINERATION of everything that had been created before Earth was the found solution.

That is, the sequence of events runs like this:
First the Creation of everything
Then humans were located in a terrible planet
They suffered uncountable evil
The Creator did not help them directly
A Saviour was sent
The Saviour was rejected by most
The Creator got infuriated
PLAN B was mobilised
Incinerate the Cosmos
Create New Heavens and a New Earth.
...
I would like to have Christians tell me if there wasn't a better plan from their weird god.
Only after I get an intelligent answer I will upgrade my low view of that weird deity.

Fininho, you are 100% correct!  I'm going to change my whole thinking just on these two posts alone.  I can't believe I've been so deluded to even fathom this.  [/sarcasm]

Really, I'm also against this gospel you're promoting as "The" gospel.  It might serve you just a hair more if you had the slightest of inclination to at least get the fairy tale straight...AND THEN comment.

I'm not aware of christians believing that god destroys this universe to start over....I was taught, and thought I had read, that god plans to basically recycle this earth after having purged it of evil during the final days.

Isaiah 65:17.

Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

2 Peter 3:12.

Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:1.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not aware of christians believing that god destroys this universe to start over....I was taught, and thought I had read, that god plans to basically recycle this earth after having purged it of evil during the final days.

Yes.
And then we have the right to ask that weird "Rebuilder" why he let the situation deteriorate to that point!
Immediately following with this other question [without giving the deity time to reply to the first one]:
WAS THERE NOT A BETTER PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING?!!

We will shout to the almighty, because we will be very upset at the time.
And no matter what answer we might get, the almighty is finished!
He will have to leave the undeserved throne, and return to junior school to learn mental discipline before attempting another faulty creation!

Quote from: "Fininho"Isaiah 65:17.

Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

2 Peter 3:12.

Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:1.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Sometimes, in context, heavens is speaking of the sky/atmosphere.  Also, some words have metaphorical meanings as in the sea.  In prophecy, the sea/waters/the ocean is a metaphor for peoples better known simply as the people of the world or the region "outside" of the fold.

But then again, this simple knowledge would come quickly to a person that is truely seeking answers and not just ammunition...especially in this "new" era where knowledge and information is available at your fingertips in moments.

Quote from: "Fininho"Yes.
And then we have the right to ask that weird "Rebuilder" why he let the situation deteriorate to that point!
Immediately following with this other question [without giving the deity time to reply to the first one]:
WAS THERE NOT A BETTER PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING?!

Respectfully, again you show ignorance.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Fininho"Yes.
And then we have the right to ask that weird "Rebuilder" why he let the situation deteriorate to that point!
Immediately following with this other question [without giving the deity time to reply to the first one]:
WAS THERE NOT A BETTER PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING?!

Respectfully, again you show ignorance.

Why do you say that?

I don't want to think with your brain: I have one working in NORMAL mode.
In matters of bible interpretation I interpret it my way, like any other honest student.
It is not my fault that the Bible introduces a faulty creator.
I can identify at least four failed programs of the almighty.

Fininho take it easy. Every one of the threads you start begins with an outrageous comment and title, and seems to be a rant. Can you possibly tone it down a bit, please? It's the written equivalent of standing on a street corner and screaming at people walking by. It just seems to put people off.

Quote from: "Fininho"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Fininho"Yes.
And then we have the right to ask that weird "Rebuilder" why he let the situation deteriorate to that point!
Immediately following with this other question [without giving the deity time to reply to the first one]:
WAS THERE NOT A BETTER PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING?!

Respectfully, again you show ignorance.

Why do you say that?

I don't want to think with your brain: I have one working in NORMAL mode.
In matters of bible interpretation I interpret it my way, like any other honest student.
It is not my fault that the Bible introduces a faulty creator.
I can identify at least four failed programs of the almighty.

I say that because while one can come to better conclusions when reading the bible without bias, you show that your approach is with complete contempt.  That manner of "study" brings no one closer to any true meanings on just about anything, and most assuredly on Biblical interpretation.  Again, lots of information is available to you with a simple g00gle search.  You just simply seem to think your mind is the only "normal" mind on the planet.  Therefore, as McQ has suggested, it sounds like you're just here to rant.  It might help you more to be open to discussion.  Otherwise, when I see an assertion without grounds I'll simply say so...and move on.

Quote from: "Fininho"Isaiah 65:17.

Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

2 Peter 3:12.

Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:1.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

So, maybe once we have destroyed this planet due to global warming maybe some lucky few get to fly to a life supporting planet in a neighboring solar system?
or
Maybe we have already destroyed Mars, and now Earth is our second chance, but it looks like via global warming that history is repeating?
or
Maybe the bible is nonsense, open for much interpretation and hence only making sense when the reader twists, turns and pounds its awkward shape into place?

Quote from: "Stevil"Maybe the bible is nonsense, open for much interpretation and hence only making sense when the reader twists, turns and pounds its awkward shape into place?

No twisting or pounding.  If one sets out to genuinely understand it, I don't mean he/she has to believe it, but understand it...similar in a sense to one that studies Shakespeare, to understand the meaning and depth of his work, likewise and maybe to a greater degree the Bible as a book of books.  Understanding doesn't necessarily mean one agrees with or holds to it's beliefs or claims.  I hope this makes sense...but I'm sure someone will say, "Makes as much sense as the study of the Great Spaghetti Monster...".  Yes, but no one or no book(s) make the same claim about a GSM.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If one sets out to genuinely understand it

I don't think the bible can be understood. It needs to be interpreted, and even then people need to attend church every week, regular bible study,  bible camp and then they need a spiritual leader to guide them. Its not like a person can read it and then go "Oh, I understand that perfectly" and then go off and live their life like a "good Christian".

BTW I am not a fan of Shakespeare, I feel the art of communication is to make your points or story easily understood by the audience. Maybe Shakespeare could be understood at the time, but for me in my time to read this stuff, gees I'd rather read Red Dwarf.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If one sets out to genuinely understand it

I don't think the bible can be understood. It needs to be interpreted, and even then people need to attend church every week, regular bible study,  bible camp and then they need a spiritual leader to guide them. Its not like a person can read it and then go "Oh, I understand that perfectly" and then go off and live their life like a "good Christian".

I notice you don't dogmatically state it cannot be understood.  I like that.  It's your interpretation that it cannot be understood and I can respect that, but only to the point before one makes false accusations on the words therein and post texts void of context.  The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

Quote from: "Stevil"BTW I am not a fan of Shakespeare, I feel the art of communication is to make your points or story easily understood by the audience. Maybe Shakespeare could be understood at the time, but for me in my time to read this stuff, gees I'd rather read Red Dwarf.

And isn't it telling that there are no groups of people that actively work to thwart the study and upholding of Shakespeare as a literary work of art? (at least none that I know of).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And isn't it telling that there are no groups of people that actively work to thwart the study and upholding of Shakespeare as a literary work of art? (at least none that I know of).

It is only natural to test theories. It happens in science all the time. When someone comes up with a theory about how something is, there are many people that "attack" and test this theory. If the theory stands up to the rigor then it can remain as a valid theory. For a valid theory the attacks only strengthen its position.  If the theory doesn't hold up then the attacks find the issue and the theory then gets modified or discarded.
These attacks should been seen as a necessary and valuable tool, a way to find the truth.

1) It's very odd that there was no Heaven or Hell in the old testament. The OT only makes mention of a "world of the dead" where both Jew and Gentile, good and evil people, etc. went after they died. In fact, Hebrew figures in the OT dreaded dying, so this after-death state must've not been all that tempting (unlike Heaven). Thus:

a) Why did good Jews not get a chance to go to this heaven if they were unfortunate enough to die in OT times? Why wasn't heaven created sooner for these loyal, honourable OT Jews?

b) Why did God send both good and evil people to the same place?


2) When Jesus comes, all of a sudden there is a Heaven created where one's "soul" will live in everlasting bliss. But wait, if you don't believe or are evil etc., you no longer just go to some type of neutral afterlife......you will burn in this supposedly newly-created Hell for all enterity!
So:

a) What happened to all those Jews, Gentiles, Good, Evil, etc. who died in OT times and who's spirit apparently went to this world of the dead? Were they now separated with those in God's favour taking the escalator to heaven while those who were not tossed into Hell?

b) What happens to all those people who do not live in the middle east region during the early period of Christianity and thus never heard of either the God of the OT nor Jesus Christ of the NT? I guess they didn't even get a chance to be "saved" before they died?

Ridiculous? Yes.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If one sets out to genuinely understand it

I don't think the bible can be understood. It needs to be interpreted, and even then people need to attend church every week, regular bible study,  bible camp and then they need a spiritual leader to guide them. Its not like a person can read it and then go "Oh, I understand that perfectly" and then go off and live their life like a "good Christian".

I notice you don't dogmatically state it cannot be understood.  I like that.  It's your interpretation that it cannot be understood and I can respect that, but only to the point before one makes false accusations on the words therein and post texts void of context.  The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

Quote from: "Stevil"BTW I am not a fan of Shakespeare, I feel the art of communication is to make your points or story easily understood by the audience. Maybe Shakespeare could be understood at the time, but for me in my time to read this stuff, gees I'd rather read Red Dwarf.

And isn't it telling that there are no groups of people that actively work to thwart the study and upholding of Shakespeare as a literary work of art? (at least none that I know of).

I don't recall hearing people try to make the claim that every word of shakespeare is true or divinely inspired. Its understood that it is fiction and is treated as such, the way the bible should also be treated the same way.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

What possible context can justify the murder of infants?  What context can justify wholesale slaughter of entire towns? How about destroying all life on the planet except for one family and the animals (and I guess the plants) which they gathered up? Do you really believe that such things, taken "in context" are in any way acceptable?  You may try to say that asking such questions is dishonest. However, unless there is a context given in scripture which makes what appear to any objective view to be atrocities not atrocities, then it matters little whether you call the questions honest or dishonest.  If that context is "YHVH operates according to a different standard than humans, and we're not qualified to judge his actions," then YHVH's standards are those of a sociopathic murderer.  YHVH supposedly gave us laws to live by which are supposed to be universal.  Are you actually going to say that being the authority which handed down laws makes the rule-giver immune to being judged by those same laws? Whence any sort of moral authority then, except by fiat?  It's just "I SAY SO!"

It probably won't surprise you to learn that I've studied the Bible, and I really cannot think of any context which makes some of the atrocious actions of YHVH acceptable, let alone adorable.  The only way to do it that I can see is to suspend judgment because the reader believes that YHVH is divine, and therefore any criticism of YHVH is unacceptable and invalid. Other than that, can you suggest a context that a person such as myself could use which would make YHVH seem like anything other than an almighty sociopath?

Truth is that most fundamentalists believe the Bible's almighty is going to fix up the wrongs of the first Plan; which I call Plan A.
Ask any of those bigots and find out for yourself.
It is preached today that that almighty is going to make NEW heavens and a NEW Earth.
All that because we upset "him" a little!
Very temperamental junior almighty, I tell you.
Now, you have to interpret the scene, because NOTHING in the biblical text regarding what is labelled "prophecy" is clear like a bell.
That is, that almighty had no time to put the story in the clearest terms possible for an almighty of "his" stature.
How preposterous can an almighty be, really!
You believe that almighty is the genuine one, with a sincere background to help us, human victims of gods' bad planning?
You tell me, please.

Quote from: "Fininho"Ask any of those bigots and find out for yourself.

McQ already asked you nicely to tone it down...do we need to do something else to help you figure this out?

Finiho, from all the posts I've seen of yours, you seem to be the very same type of person you claim to hate so much.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Fininho"Ask any of those bigots and find out for yourself.

McQ already asked you nicely to tone it down...do we need to do something else to help you figure this out?

This is the way I am, my friend.
Genuine.

The point is whether the gospel is ridiculous or not.
With an almighty that is going to incinerate the entire cosmos only because humans stuck in a worthless planet somewhere in the infinite cosmos upset him a little!
Is this gospel preached in our suburbs not ridiculous?

How else must i put it?

Quote from: "Fininho"This is the way I am, my friend.
Genuine.

Ok...well, I'm going to give you a week to think about this because I'm thinking HAF isn't the place for you.

edit:  btw the above means I just put him on a 7 day ban.  Fyi, this is not the first time I've had this discussion with him.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

What possible context can justify the murder of infants?  What context can justify wholesale slaughter of entire towns? How about destroying all life on the planet except for one family and the animals (and I guess the plants) which they gathered up? Do you really believe that such things, taken "in context" are in any way acceptable?  You may try to say that asking such questions is dishonest. However, unless there is a context given in scripture which makes what appear to any objective view to be atrocities not atrocities, then it matters little whether you call the questions honest or dishonest.  If that context is "YHVH operates according to a different standard than humans, and we're not qualified to judge his actions," then YHVH's standards are those of a sociopathic murderer.  YHVH supposedly gave us laws to live by which are supposed to be universal.  Are you actually going to say that being the authority which handed down laws makes the rule-giver immune to being judged by those same laws? Whence any sort of moral authority then, except by fiat?  It's just "I SAY SO!"

It probably won't surprise you to learn that I've studied the Bible, and I really cannot think of any context which makes some of the atrocious actions of YHVH acceptable, let alone adorable.  The only way to do it that I can see is to suspend judgment because the reader believes that YHVH is divine, and therefore any criticism of YHVH is unacceptable and invalid. Other than that, can you suggest a context that a person such as myself could use which would make YHVH seem like anything other than an almighty sociopath?

Agreed. Why are those sinister Bible stories so easy to put out of mind?

Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

:hissyfit:  :brick:  

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

The lack of a real 'God' is not a problem it's the fact that there are 10,000 or more 'gods' and they are all made up fairy tales to satisfy the egos/ignorance of a bunch of sycophantic, manipulative, megalomaniac, delusional, charismatic Alpha Males, who use mythology/superstition to exploit anybody they can.

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

Considering I just banned the OP for 7 dayes because he was so over the top maybe you should reconsider saying "you guys" ..atheists aren't a hive mind.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

:hissyfit:  :brick:  

your right

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

:hissyfit:  :brick:  

your right

I'm glad you could see my point of view.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

:hissyfit:  :brick:  ;)

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

The lack of a real 'God' is not a problem it's the fact that there are 10,000 or more 'gods' and they are all made up fairy tales to satisfy the egos/ignorance of a bunch of sycophantic, manipulative, megalomaniac, delusional, charismatic Alpha Males, who use mythology/superstition to exploit anybody they can.

I agree

your right[/quote]

you are or you're  [/quote]
 
Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

Quote from: "defendor"Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

What subject matter? All you said was "you're right".

Quote from: "defendor"Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

The answer is is that we don't hate God.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote

Quoteyour right

you are or you're  

Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

I actually already addressed that...I think you should read the forum rules, consider this your 'friendly' warning.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

The answer is is that we don't hate God.

so maybe you're not liable to speak on this, but if God doesn't exist, why is there such mockery of claims about God? Why care?

In any kind of management position, you tell your staff to obey certain rules. If you don't live by the same rules yourself, then you loose all respect from your staff. The applies for the God of the Bible as well. How is it possible to respect and worship a God, who has no problems to violate his own moral codes?

Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes[/quote]

I actually already addressed that...I think you should read the forum rules, consider this your 'friendly' warning.[/quote]

Ok, maybe I misread what tone you had on you're response, but it seemed belittling and had nothing to do with the thought of my statement, so I took it as a snide remark.  But, I don't understand what I'm being warned for.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

The answer is is that we don't hate God.

so maybe you're not liable to speak on this, but if God doesn't exist, why is there such mockery of claims about God? Why care?

Because of how prevalent theism is in our society.

Also, if someone said that Hitler was a good role model, wouldn't you ridicule his beliefs?

Quote from: "Tom62"In any kind of management position, you tell your staff to obey certain rules. If you don't live by the same rules yourself, then you loose all respect from your staff. The applies for the God of the Bible as well. How is it possible to respect and worship a God, who has no problems to violate his own moral codes?

Before I answer this I would like to ask you a few questions I don't mean to be rude or prying but it would be appreciated, I don't mind if you choose not to answer them, have you once, at any time been a "Christian"? What are your views on God now?  What is good?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

The answer is is that we don't hate God.

so maybe you're not liable to speak on this, but if God doesn't exist, why is there such mockery of claims about God? Why care?

Because there are a lot of Christians that are hell bent on trying to convert non Christians.
Because there are a lot of religious people trying to push their morals and sin system onto others

Because there are a lot of Christians that are hell bent on trying to convert non Christians.
Because there are a lot of religious people trying to push their morals and sin system onto others[/quote]


That may be so, but how do people in abuse of a philosophy, disqualify the philosophy itself?

Quote from: "defendor"have you once, at any time been a "Christian"?

Yes.

QuoteWhat are your views on God now?

The Abrahamic gods? I know with reasonable certainty that they don't exist. As to any god in general, I think that they probably don't exist, but I don't deny their existence as I couldn't possibly know.

QuoteWhat is good?

The opposite of bad -- that is to say, things I like.

Quote from: "defendor"That may be so, but how do people in abuse of a philosophy, disqualify the philosophy itself?

...What?

so maybe you're not liable to speak on this, but if God doesn't exist, why is there such mockery of claims about God? Why care?[/quote]
Because of how prevalent theism is in our society.

Also, if someone said that Hitler was a good role model, wouldn't you ridicule his beliefs?[/quote]

So is this more of an issue of outcasting yourself from societal norms as opposed to tangible disclaiming evidence of a theistic God?  If someone said Hitler is good, I would ask him what is he basing good off of?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"That may be so, but how do people in abuse of a philosophy, disqualify the philosophy itself?

...What?

let me say this in a more direct manner, don't judge a philosophy by its abuse
Hitler and Stalin were atheists, yet I haven't pegged the atheists on here as jew murdering swash bucklers
It also seems we have tolerance for Islam as whole (outside of a few nutjobs) even with 9/11 radicalists
So why the harshness against Christianity

Quote from: "defendor"So is this more of an issue of outcasting yourself from societal norms as opposed to tangible disclaiming evidence of a theistic God?

What? Where'd you get that from?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"So is this more of an issue of outcasting yourself from societal norms as opposed to tangible disclaiming evidence of a theistic God?

What? Where'd you get that from?

you made the notion there are so many mockery claims about God due to the prevalence of god in society, so are you simply going against societies norms or is there tangible evidence that God doesn't exist

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, but you haven't answered my question, so if you would continue to divert the attention of the subject matter and please point out my punctuation mistakes

The answer is is that we don't hate God.

so maybe you're not liable to speak on this, but if God doesn't exist, why is there such mockery of claims about God? Why care?

The existance, or not, of God is not the issue. It's the claims made in the name of specific gods by people to justify their own actions that are at issue. There are then the consequences of the actions of people who follow institutionalised superstitions that enshrine a particular delusional world view that potentially impact on all people on Earth.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_SnQegSSOalE%2FTIvSwdA1tLI%2FAAAAAAAABCM%2Fymoy0T2kTC4%2Fs1600%2F911-attack.gif&hash=213f9106dbfd3ac46bfc49844597d0d776b7c71e)

Now unless you are a follower of the Sunni Muslin cult of Wahhabi Islam you also have an issue with people who claim their beliefs justify their actions.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3216%2F2979979221_22456b3312.jpg&hash=046a2719b3e97ffa294d4a7eae820f55ee7ef473)

Alternatively you could be a supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church or some equally bizarre pimple on the arse of Christianity.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religionwithconcept.com%2Fimages%2Falbum%2Fslides%2F005-GANISH%2520JI%2520WITH%2520RIDHE%2520SEDHI.jpg&hash=917ea3caa76938e8b790864b2df45114ef8b952a)

There are also some really nice 'all inclusive' clubs to join if you want.

The claims humans make in the cause of institutionalised superstitions, AKA religions, are many and varied. However, they are ALL wrong from my perspective as they are based on the false premise that God exists. From any given theist's perspective they are also ALL wrong, except the one that particular theist believes. So ALL theists are actually atheists-1, they believe in one example of institutionalised superstition.

So 'God' is not the issue it's the activities of theists in the name of god that is the issue.

Quote from: "defendor"let me say this in a more direct manner, don't judge a philosophy by its abuse

We're not.

QuoteHitler and Stalin were atheists, yet I haven't pegged the atheists on here as jew murdering swash bucklers

Good thing you haven't, because a lot of theists try to make the connection between Stalin and Hitler and atheism.

AND HITLER WAS NOT A FUCKING ATHEIST. I'm sorry for yelling. I'm just so god damned tired of hearing that.

QuoteIt also seems we have tolerance for Islam as whole (outside of a few nutjobs) even with 9/11 radicalists

...  

QuoteSo why the harshness against Christianity

When Christians stop doing things I don't like, such as oppose gay equality, then I'll continue to be harsh against it.
Also, it's stupid, and that's a good a reason as any to mock something.

Quote from: "defendor"you made the notion there are so many mockery claims about God due to the prevalence of god in society,

"Mockery claims"? Man, you used weird language. Do you mean that I said I'm against religion because of how prevalent in society it is?

Quoteso are you simply going against societies norms or is there tangible evidence that God doesn't exist

The latter.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"have you once, at any time been a "Christian"?

Yes.

QuoteWhat are your views on God now?

The Abrahamic gods? I know with reasonable certainty that they don't exist. As to any god in general, I think that they probably don't exist, but I don't deny their existence as I couldn't possibly know.

QuoteWhat is good?

The opposite of bad -- that is to say, things I like.

for the first question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s)

the second one and the third tie together, on what moral standard are you basing this good and bad on? if we are products of evolution and chance is our creator, why are there such things as good, or bad?

Quote from: "defendor"Have you once, at any time been a "Christian"? What are your views on God now?  What is good?

I've been a Catholic
I no longer consider God to be real
Good is the opposite of bad. Anything that unnecessary hurts other beings, I consider to be bad

The existance, or not, of God is not the issue. It's the claims made in the name of specific gods by people to justify their own actions that are at issue. There are then the consequences of the actions of people who follow institutionalised superstitions that enshrine a particular delusional world view that potentially impact on all people on Earth.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_SnQegSSOalE%2FTIvSwdA1tLI%2FAAAAAAAABCM%2Fymoy0T2kTC4%2Fs1600%2F911-attack.gif&hash=213f9106dbfd3ac46bfc49844597d0d776b7c71e)

Now unless you are a follower of the Sunni Muslin cult of Wahhabi Islam you also have an issue with people who claim their beliefs justify their actions.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3216%2F2979979221_22456b3312.jpg&hash=046a2719b3e97ffa294d4a7eae820f55ee7ef473)

Alternatively you could be a supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church or some equally bizarre pimple on the arse of Christianity.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religionwithconcept.com%2Fimages%2Falbum%2Fslides%2F005-GANISH%2520JI%2520WITH%2520RIDHE%2520SEDHI.jpg&hash=917ea3caa76938e8b790864b2df45114ef8b952a)

There are also some really nice 'all inclusive' clubs to join if you want.

The claims humans make in the cause of institutionalised superstitions, AKA religions, are many and varied. However, they are ALL wrong from my perspective as they are based on the false premise that God exists. From any given theist's perspective they are also ALL wrong, except the one that particular theist believes. So ALL theists are actually atheists-1, they believe in one example of institutionalised superstition.

So 'God' is not the issue it's the activities of theists in the name of god that is the issue.[/quote]

SO why are you judging a philosophy by its abuse

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"you made the notion there are so many mockery claims about God due to the prevalence of god in society,

"Mockery claims"? Man, you used weird language. Do you mean that I said I'm against religion because of how prevalent in society it is?

Yes

Quoteso are you simply going against societies norms or is there tangible evidence that God doesn't exist

The latter.

Please point to the proof

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"let me say this in a more direct manner, don't judge a philosophy by its abuse

We're not.

"So 'God' is not the issue it's the activities of theists in the name of god that is the issue."  thats the post right above yours

QuoteHitler and Stalin were atheists, yet I haven't pegged the atheists on here as jew murdering swash bucklers

Good thing you haven't, because a lot of theists try to make the connection between Stalin and Hitler and atheism.

AND HITLER WAS NOT A FUCKING ATHEIST. I'm sorry for yelling. I'm just so god damned tired of hearing that.

he was a "believer" in the philosophy of Nietzche

QuoteIt also seems we have tolerance for Islam as whole (outside of a few nutjobs) even with 9/11 radicalists

...  

That doesn't answer it

QuoteSo why the harshness against Christianity

When Christians stop doing things I don't like, such as oppose gay equality, then I'll continue to be harsh against it.
Also, it's stupid, and that's a good a reason as any to mock something.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"let me say this in a more direct manner, don't judge a philosophy by its abuse

We're not.

It's stupid huh? sound logic

Quote from: "defendor"for the first question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s)

I can't watch it right now.

Quotethe second one and the third tie together, on what moral standard are you basing this good and bad on? if we are products of evolution and chance is our creator, why are there such things as good, or bad?

There is no ultimate moral standard. "Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective. What is "bad" and what is "good" to me is simply my opinion.

Quote from: "defendor"SO why are you judging a philosophy by its abuse

Can you please learn how to use the quote system? It's really annoying when you don't use it correctly.
We're not "judging a philosophy by its abuse".

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"for the first question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s)

I can't watch it right now.

Quotethe second one and the third tie together, on what moral standard are you basing this good and bad on? if we are products of evolution and chance is our creator, why are there such things as good, or bad?

There is no ultimate moral standard. "Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective. What is "bad" and what is "good" to me is simply my opinion.

So what does it matter if Hitler was good or bad, if it is a subjective moral standard, how could you mock him for saying he was good?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"have you once, at any time been a "Christian"?

Yes.

QuoteWhat are your views on God now?

The Abrahamic gods? I know with reasonable certainty that they don't exist. As to any god in general, I think that they probably don't exist, but I don't deny their existence as I couldn't possibly know.

QuoteWhat is good?

The opposite of bad -- that is to say, things I like.

for the first question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s)

the second one and the third tie together, on what moral standard are you basing this good and bad on? if we are products of evolution and chance is our creator, why are there such things as good, or bad?

Good and bad are simply different views of any given activity based on which side of the activity a person stands. For the mugger, mugging is not a thing they would consider 'bad enough' to stop them doing it. In their world view mugging is 'good' as they benefit from it. From the victim's point of view being mugged is 'bad'. It harms them physically, emotionally and materially. Good or bad is determined by perspective, it is not an absolute.

As an evolved creature there are both physical and behavioural variations in all of us short/tall, empathic/autistic, selfish/altruistic etc. All these characteristics exist on a continuum, they are analogue not digital quantities. Thus some people end up with characteristics that may pre-dispose them to stereotypical good or bad behaviour. The environment they are born into will influence their adult behaviour too. Thus variations in behaviour are a given and the behaviour of an individual verses the expectations of the community they live in will determine if that behaviour is perceived as 'good' or 'bad'.

See, no god required to explain aor appreciate how good and bad are perceived in any given community/society.

Quote from: "defendor"Please point to the proof

First, there's the contractions between his supposed traits, i.e. can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, and can God look into the future and then change what he was going to do?.

Then there's the problem of evil.

Quote from: "Epicurus"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Quote from: "defendor"So what does it matter if Hitler was good or bad, if it is a subjective moral standard, how could you mock him for saying he was good?

Because I think he was an evil man who did horrible, horrible acts, and I also think that's very obvious.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"So what does it matter if Hitler was good or bad, if it is a subjective moral standard, how could you mock him for saying he was good?

Because I think he was an evil man who did horrible, horrible acts, and I also think that's very obvious.

obvious to who? you? on what objective moral standard is this obvious, i mean, the entire nation of nazi Germany thought quite the contrary.  Because you think...? isn't that subjective, what does your opinion really matter if everything is relative?

Quote from: "defendor"obvious to who? you?

Yes, and pretty much everyone else of the modern world.

Quoteon what objective moral standard is this obvious, i mean, the entire nation of nazi Germany thought quite the contrary.

It's obvious to me.

QuoteBecause you think...? isn't that subjective,

I just said it was.

Quotewhat does your opinion really matter if everything is relative?

If "everything is relative", then my opinion is the only thing that matters.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"obvious to who? you?

Yes, and pretty much everyone else of the modern world

Quoteon what objective moral standard is this obvious, i mean, the entire nation of nazi Germany thought quite the contrary.

It's obvious to me.

QuoteBecause you think...? isn't that subjective,

I just said it was.

Quotewhat does your opinion really matter if everything is relative?

If "everything is relative", then my opinion is the only thing that matters.

So why do you bring everyone else in the modern world to agree with your opinion if your opinion is the only thing that matters.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteBecause there are a lot of Christians that are hell bent on trying to convert non Christians.
Because there are a lot of religious people trying to push their morals and sin system onto others

That may be so, but how do people in abuse of a philosophy, disqualify the philosophy itself?

There are many issues with many of the philosophies. If one is seen as a threat e.g. because it keeps growing and affects laws and societies rules then people become motivated to stop it and hence publicise or vocalise the issues with the philosophies in an attempt to quell its growth and power to affect laws etc.

Also, it is natural to challenge all theories, without challenges we would not find the truth.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteBecause there are a lot of Christians that are hell bent on trying to convert non Christians.
Because there are a lot of religious people trying to push their morals and sin system onto others

That may be so, but how do people in abuse of a philosophy, disqualify the philosophy itself?

There are many issues with many of the philosophies. If one is seen as a threat e.g. because it keeps growing and affects laws and societies rules then people become motivated to stop it and hence publicise or vocalise the issues with the philosophies in an attempt to quell its growth and power to affect laws etc.

Also, it is natural to challenge all theories, without challenges we would not find the truth.

So in that first part, you are making claims to some objective standard of living, but aren't all perspectives relative, how would that be seen as an issue if there is no coherent standard as to what defines an issue?

On the second part, I completely agree

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "defendor"Have you once, at any time been a "Christian"? What are your views on God now?  What is good?

I've been a Catholic
I no longer consider God to be real
Good is the opposite of bad. Anything that unnecessary hurts other beings, I consider to be bad

for the first question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s)

the second one and the third tie together, on what moral standard are you basing this good and bad on? if we are products of evolution and chance is our creator, why are there such things as good, or bad?

Quote from: "defendor"So why do you bring everyone else in the modern world to agree with your opinion if your opinion is the only thing that matters.

Just pointing it out.

And note that I said "if". I don't believe that everything is literally relative -- I believe that there are facts.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"SO why are you judging a philosophy by its abuse

Can you please learn how to use the quote system? It's really annoying when you don't use it correctly.
We're not "judging a philosophy by its abuse".

Ya idk how to do the quote thing yet, so I simply went to a post you made and copied it, feel free to go back and look at

When Christians stop doing things I don't like, such as oppose gay equality, then I'll continue to be harsh against it.
Also, it's stupid, and that's a good a reason as any to mock something.

Read that first line, not only did you not mention Christianity, you specifically pointed out Christians to be the blame.  Sounds like judging a philosophy by its abuse

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"SO why are you judging a philosophy by its abuse

Can you please learn how to use the quote system? It's really annoying when you don't use it correctly.
We're not "judging a philosophy by its abuse".

Ya idk how to do the quote thing yet, so I simply went to a post you made and copied it, feel free to go back and look at

When Christians stop doing things I don't like, such as oppose gay equality, then I'll continue to be harsh against it.
Also, it's stupid, and that's a good a reason as any to mock something.

Read that first line, not only did you not mention Christianity, you specifically pointed out Christians to be the blame.  Sounds like judging a philosophy by its abuse

Quote from: "defendor"Read that first line, not only did you not mention Christianity, you specifically pointed out Christians to be the blame.  Sounds like judging a philosophy by its abuse

I'm not rejecting Christianity because of those reasons. I'm saying I'm against it and ridicule it for those reasons.

Quote from: "defendor"Ya idk how to do the quote thing yet, so I simply went to a post you made and copied it, feel free to go back and look at

learn it viewtopic.php?f=39&t=203 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=203)

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Tank"The existance, or not, of God is not the issue. It's the claims made in the name of specific gods by people to justify their own actions that are at issue. There are then the consequences of the actions of people who follow institutionalised superstitions that enshrine a particular delusional world view that potentially impact on all people on Earth.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_SnQegSSOalE%2FTIvSwdA1tLI%2FAAAAAAAABCM%2Fymoy0T2kTC4%2Fs1600%2F911-attack.gif&hash=213f9106dbfd3ac46bfc49844597d0d776b7c71e)

Now unless you are a follower of the Sunni Muslin cult of Wahhabi Islam you also have an issue with people who claim their beliefs justify their actions.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3216%2F2979979221_22456b3312.jpg&hash=046a2719b3e97ffa294d4a7eae820f55ee7ef473)

Alternatively you could be a supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church or some equally bizarre pimple on the arse of Christianity.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religionwithconcept.com%2Fimages%2Falbum%2Fslides%2F005-GANISH%2520JI%2520WITH%2520RIDHE%2520SEDHI.jpg&hash=917ea3caa76938e8b790864b2df45114ef8b952a)

There are also some really nice 'all inclusive' clubs to join if you want.

The claims humans make in the cause of institutionalised superstitions, AKA religions, are many and varied. However, they are ALL wrong from my perspective as they are based on the false premise that God exists. From any given theist's perspective they are also ALL wrong, except the one that particular theist believes. So ALL theists are actually atheists-1, they believe in one example of institutionalised superstition.

So 'God' is not the issue it's the activities of theists in the name of god that is the issue.

SO why are you judging a philosophy by its abuse

If you had read my post you would see that I'm not doing that. Hinduism is relatively benign in my view and if we were all Hindus the world would be a better place than it is, particularly for cows!

I am perfectly within my rights as an individual to judge other peoples behaviour based on the impact those behaviours will have on me. If those behaviours are influenced by the philosophy (world view) that those individuals hold I am perfectly within my rights to comment on and criticise those world views in the context of any given individual that holds them. If the philosophy (National Socialism, Khmer Rouge, Wahhabi Islam) is sufficiently cohesive among a group of adherents it is reasonable to extend my commentary and/or criticism to that group. Simply decrying Christianity for the activities of the WBC or Islam for the Wahhabi cult or Communism because of Khmer Rouge is too generalist. So if a group is sufficiently cohesive in its implementation of a particular philosophy (world view) then it can be judged on its behaviour as a group. If that behaviour was good or bad it could still be attributed to the people who hold to the ideals of a particular philosophy. I particularly like Sikhism because of its focus on equality and charitable acts. I find the WBC to be a vile bunch of bigoted morons.

However as no theist has yet to accurately define God and then demonstrate their definition to be correct to the satisfaction of ALL other theists I feel quite comfortable in my assessment that no man-made God exists. Thus I can decry theism because of its inconsistent and incoherent representations of reality and God. Why does this matter to me? Simply because basing one's world view on a superstitious and supernatural basis wastes time and effort discovering what is really going on. On the basis of 'garbage in garbage out' holding a superstitious belief in the supernatural and acting on that belief as though it 'trumps' a realist naturalistic world view is simply an unsustainable behaviour for the human race to exhibit.

Institutionalised superstitions work relatively well when the populations adhering to any particular superstition are small and separated. They provide cohesion to the society and in a world populated be daemons that cause disease etc they provide a comfort blanket for the individual in times of distress. However today some superstitions have billions of adherents and they live next door to each other, or worse in whole countries next to each other. That situation is a recipe for disaster that is cooking as we type here. The competition for world views 'trumps' the reality of our situation. The Catholic church when faced with overpopulation does nothing, because of its dogmatic adherence to its philosophy. Wahhabi Islam preaches hated of the Kafir.

Theists wear 'God Goggles' and until they take them off and see reality for what it is then they can never address the real issues we face that are brought about by the fact that we are simple the result of the process of evolution and not a construct of god (chose your own version).

EDIT: and > then

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"Ya idk how to do the quote thing yet, so I simply went to a post you made and copied it, feel free to go back and look at

learn it viewtopic.php?f=39&t=203 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=203)

thank you whitney, i think we started out on the wrong foot, I am new to this site and feel a sense of compassion for those that truly seek and would like to help answer if not point in the direction of answers. I may assume you are an administrator, would it be ok if I was able to participate in this forum, to truly challenge one another in the on going quest for truth?

Quote from: "defendor"thank you whitney, i think we started out on the wrong foot, I am new to this site and feel a sense of compassion for those that truly seek and would like to help answer if not point in the direction of answers.

You should probably start a new thread instead of hijacking this one.

QuoteI may assume you are an administrator,

Yes, she is an administrator, and the owner of this site.

Quotewould it be ok if I was able to participate in this forum, to truly challenge one another in the on going quest for truth?

Of course, but please don't be a troll.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"Ya idk how to do the quote thing yet, so I simply went to a post you made and copied it, feel free to go back and look at

learn it viewtopic.php?f=39&t=203 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=203)

thank you whitney, i think we started out on the wrong foot, I am new to this site and feel a sense of compassion for those that truly seek and would like to help answer if not point in the direction of answers. I may assume you are an administrator, would it be ok if I was able to participate in this forum, to truly challenge one another in the on going quest for truth?

If you read and adhere to the rules (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522) you wont get banned.

If you follow the guidelines in this illustration, then you could well become a valued member.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2F4149%2Fdebateflowchart1.jpg&hash=ea8d3ae6813e7dd326f26c370cbd1e1da6dd38ad)

However if you fail to do the above you'll find your views and behaviour derided and with good reason.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Read that first line, not only did you not mention Christianity, you specifically pointed out Christians to be the blame.  Sounds like judging a philosophy by its abuse

I'm not rejecting Christianity because of those reasons. I'm saying I'm against it and ridicule it for those reasons.

So is that not just an act of rejecting it (being against and ridiculing)

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Read that first line, not only did you not mention Christianity, you specifically pointed out Christians to be the blame.  Sounds like judging a philosophy by its abuse

I'm not rejecting Christianity because of those reasons. I'm saying I'm against it and ridicule it for those reasons.

So is that not just an act of rejecting it (being against and ridiculing)

QuoteIf you had read my post you would see that I'm not doing that. Hinduism is relatively benign in my view and if we were all Hindus the world would be a better place than it is, particularly for cows!

Are you a practicing Hindu?

QuoteI am perfectly within my rights as an individual to judge other peoples behaviour based on the impact those behaviours will have on me.

What "rights" are we talkin about, cuz most of the rights I know are used to describe all people with some intrinsic value

QuoteIf those behaviours are influenced by the philosophy (world view) that those individuals hold I am perfectly within my rights to comment on and criticise those world views in the context of any given individual that holds them.

you're making 2 assumptions 1. What you have to say actually has meaning 2. That you alone hold the standard of right and wrong, as opposed to them

QuoteIf the philosophy (National Socialism, Khmer Rouge, Wahhabi Islam) is sufficiently cohesive among a group of adherents it is reasonable to extend my commentary and/or criticism to that group. Simply decrying Christianity for the activities of the WBC or Islam for the Wahhabi cult or Communism because of Khmer Rouge is too generalist. So if a group is sufficiently cohesive in its implementation of a particular philosophy (world view) then it can be judged on its behaviour as a group. If that behaviour was good or bad it could still be attributed to the people who hold to the ideals of a particular philosophy. I particularly like Sikhism because of its focus on equality and charitable acts. I find the WBC to be a vile bunch of bigoted morons.

That would be judging a philosophy by its practice, not its abuse.  You're assuming that what those people are doing are damaging other people, and if we are just random mis-happenings of chance and evolution, why are you willing to account to them intrinsic value?

QuoteHowever as no theist has yet to accurately define God and then demonstrate their definition to be correct

Eternally: powerful, merciful, gracious, loving, just... i guess its that eternal part we have to figure out

Quoteto the satisfaction of ALL other theists I feel quite comfortable in my assessment that no man-made God exists.

The definition of a God cannot be conjured simply on man's power, how do we as finite beings conjure such ideas of magnitude, perfection, and omnipotence, when we in our physical reality know nothing of the sort?

QuoteThus I can decry theism because of its inconsistent and incoherent representations of reality and God. Why does this matter to me? Simply because basing one's world view on a superstitious and supernatural basis wastes time and effort discovering what is really going on. On the basis of 'garbage in garbage out' holding a superstitious belief in the supernatural and acting on that belief as though it 'trumps' a realist naturalistic world view is simply an unsustainable behaviour for the human race to exhibit.

But aren't they just as "right" as you are?

QuoteInstitutionalised superstitions work relatively well when the populations adhering to any particular superstition are small and separated. They provide cohesion to the society and in a world populated be daemons that cause disease etc they provide a comfort blanket for the individual in times of distress. However today some superstitions have billions of adherents and they live next door to each other, or worse in whole countries next to each other. That situation is a recipe for disaster that is cooking as we type here. The competition for world views 'trumps' the reality of our situation. The Catholic church when faced with overpopulation does nothing, because of its dogmatic adherence to its philosophy. Wahhabi Islam preaches hated of the Kafir.

Is this not survival of the fittest? why do you oppose then?

QuoteTheists wear 'God Goggles' and until they take them off and see reality for what it is then they can never address the real issues we face that are brought about by the fact that we are simple the result of the process of evolution and not a construct of god (chose your own version).

Isn't realism relative?  How am i supposed to see reality?  Isn't believing in God just as subjective as saying there is no God?

So is that not just an act of rejecting it (being against and ridiculing)[/quote]
 [/quote]


If I'm wrong, feel free to point out where I am, I may be blind to my own blindness, i'm not unwilling to admit that, but a simple emoticon does nothing for debates sake

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteIf you had read my post you would see that I'm not doing that. Hinduism is relatively benign in my view and if we were all Hindus the world would be a better place than it is, particularly for cows!

Are you a practicing Hindu?

QuoteI am perfectly within my rights as an individual to judge other peoples behaviour based on the impact those behaviours will have on me.

What "rights" are we talkin about, cuz most of the rights I know are used to describe all people with some intrinsic value

QuoteIf those behaviours are influenced by the philosophy (world view) that those individuals hold I am perfectly within my rights to comment on and criticise those world views in the context of any given individual that holds them.

you're making 2 assumptions 1. What you have to say actually has meaning 2. That you alone hold the standard of right and wrong, as opposed to them

QuoteIf the philosophy (National Socialism, Khmer Rouge, Wahhabi Islam) is sufficiently cohesive among a group of adherents it is reasonable to extend my commentary and/or criticism to that group. Simply decrying Christianity for the activities of the WBC or Islam for the Wahhabi cult or Communism because of Khmer Rouge is too generalist. So if a group is sufficiently cohesive in its implementation of a particular philosophy (world view) then it can be judged on its behaviour as a group. If that behaviour was good or bad it could still be attributed to the people who hold to the ideals of a particular philosophy. I particularly like Sikhism because of its focus on equality and charitable acts. I find the WBC to be a vile bunch of bigoted morons.

That would be judging a philosophy by its practice, not its abuse.  You're assuming that what those people are doing are damaging other people, and if we are just random mis-happenings of chance and evolution, why are you willing to account to them intrinsic value?

QuoteHowever as no theist has yet to accurately define God and then demonstrate their definition to be correct

Eternally: powerful, merciful, gracious, loving, just... i guess its that eternal part we have to figure out

Quoteto the satisfaction of ALL other theists I feel quite comfortable in my assessment that no man-made God exists.

The definition of a God cannot be conjured simply on man's power, how do we as finite beings conjure such ideas of magnitude, perfection, and omnipotence, when we in our physical reality know nothing of the sort?

QuoteThus I can decry theism because of its inconsistent and incoherent representations of reality and God. Why does this matter to me? Simply because basing one's world view on a superstitious and supernatural basis wastes time and effort discovering what is really going on. On the basis of 'garbage in garbage out' holding a superstitious belief in the supernatural and acting on that belief as though it 'trumps' a realist naturalistic world view is simply an unsustainable behaviour for the human race to exhibit.

But aren't they just as "right" as you are?

QuoteInstitutionalised superstitions work relatively well when the populations adhering to any particular superstition are small and separated. They provide cohesion to the society and in a world populated be daemons that cause disease etc they provide a comfort blanket for the individual in times of distress. However today some superstitions have billions of adherents and they live next door to each other, or worse in whole countries next to each other. That situation is a recipe for disaster that is cooking as we type here. The competition for world views 'trumps' the reality of our situation. The Catholic church when faced with overpopulation does nothing, because of its dogmatic adherence to its philosophy. Wahhabi Islam preaches hated of the Kafir.

Is this not survival of the fittest? why do you oppose then?

QuoteTheists wear 'God Goggles' and until they take them off and see reality for what it is then they can never address the real issues we face that are brought about by the fact that we are simple the result of the process of evolution and not a construct of god (chose your own version).

Isn't realism relative?  How am i supposed to see reality?  Isn't believing in God just as subjective as saying there is no God?

I am not a practising Hindu. I am an atheist.

As for the rest of your post I refer you to the diagram above.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your time here. I may choose to re-engage with you at a later date. I have found out enough about your world view and attitude in your responses to deduce that we do not share sufficient common ground to have a discussion.

Regards
Chris

Quote

QuoteI am not a practising Hindu. I am an atheist.

As for the rest of your post I refer you to the diagram above.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your time here. I may choose to re-engage with you at a later date. I have found out enough about your world view and attitude in your responses to deduce that we do not share sufficient common ground to have a discussion.

Regards
Chris

as i am new and do not understand the aforementioned, could you please point out what was in violation of such rules, i do not mean to do such, and will gladly change my ways if i can see the error of my ways

Quote from: "defendor"So in that first part, you are making claims to some objective standard of living, but aren't all perspectives relative, how would that be seen as an issue if there is no coherent standard as to what defines an issue?

Personally I want equal rights for all people. I want gay couples to be able to marry, I want women to have the same opportunity that men do with regards to holding senior roles, I don't want women to have to hid themselves under a bed sheet and speak only in whispers, I don't want women to be excluded from the education system, I don't want sex education to be outlawed, I don't want condoms to be abolished, I don't want abortion clinics to be outlawed, I want euthanasia to become legal...
For these reasons I will oppose organisations that I see as a threat to that.

QuotePersonally I want equal rights for all people. I want gay couples to be able to marry, I want women to have the same opportunity that men do with regards to holding senior roles, I don't want women to have to hid themselves under a bed sheet and speak only in whispers, I don't want women to be excluded from the education system, I don't want sex education to be outlawed, I don't want condoms to be abolished, I don't want abortion clinics to be outlawed, I want euthanasia to become legal...
For these reasons I will oppose organisations that I see as a threat to that.

i'm going to finalize a few points and i'm glad you brought these up.  
I have no problem with any of these, ya if someone is homosexual thats kinda gross, but he's still a human, woman are in equal value as men, i think sex education will do more good in operation and helping the youth understand proper relationships, condoms should not ever be abolished for it saves a whole lot of heart ache, and it is not some sin, idk about the whole abortion clinic thing but if it's majority rights and majority wants them then I have the choice not to participate in them and can speak out about them assuming some set of moral standards and proceed to properly under law be active against such that violate what i believe to be an absolute moral standard
the thing I simply do not understand is that how can you, with an atheistic philosophy, make assumptions like this, that all of the people you listed, have some sort of intrinsic value that is not simply just a culmination of atoms and product of chance

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote

QuoteI am not a practising Hindu. I am an atheist.

As for the rest of your post I refer you to the diagram above.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your time here. I may choose to re-engage with you at a later date. I have found out enough about your world view and attitude in your responses to deduce that we do not share sufficient common ground to have a discussion.

Regards
Chris

as i am new and do not understand the aforementioned, could you please point out what was in violation of such rules, i do not mean to do such, and will gladly change my ways if i can see the error of my ways

Don't worry you haven't broken any rules. I just don't feel that further debate with you will benefit myself or yourself. But I will keep reading and if that view changes I'll jump right in.

Quote from: "Tank"Don't worry you haven't broken any rules. I just don't feel that further debate with you will benefit myself or yourself. But I will keep reading and if that view changes I'll jump right in.

Define benefit...? sorry i was joking, i guess we can be civil agree to disagree... for now

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "defendor"Have you once, at any time been a "Christian"? What are your views on God now?  What is good?

I've been a Catholic
I no longer consider God to be real
Good is the opposite of bad. Anything that unnecessary hurts other beings, I consider to be bad

for the first question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTm3W2Ai7s)

the second one and the third tie together, on what moral standard are you basing this good and bad on? if we are products of evolution and chance is our creator, why are there such things as good, or bad?

I watched the video, but doesn't see how it relates to the first question, unless  the person in that video assumes that Catholics are not real Christians. The pope and millions of Catholic believers might however not agree with that guy   . Basically, I don't really care if some Christian groups believe that they are better Christians. The last question has already been sufficiently answered by others in this thread.

if you can't find the post you are looking for go to: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6626 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6626)

I just merged the derail into the meaning thread where it belongs.

Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Quote from: "McQ"Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Not sure on what a straw man debate techniques are, I do not mean to be disingenuous with people but here's a few thoughts 1.  How am I misinterpreting the survival of the fittest?  2. you are obviously upset with me on violating such code of ethics, why are you upset with me if I haven't violate any of my own morality laws?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "McQ"Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Not sure on what a straw man debate techniques are, I do not mean to be disingenuous with people but here's a few thoughts 1.  How am I misinterpreting the survival of the fittest?  2. you are obviously upset with me on violating such code of ethics, why are you upset with me if I haven't violate any of my own morality laws?

Straw man example: you just accused me of being obviously upset with you on violating a code of ethics, when I made no such statement. Arguing against a point that was never made is an example of putting up a straw man. Google is your friend.

(edited for typos)

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "McQ"Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Not sure on what a straw man debate techniques are, I do not mean to be disingenuous with people but here's a few thoughts 1.  How am I misinterpreting the survival of the fittest?  2. you are obviously upset with me on violating such code of ethics, why are you upset with me if I haven't violate any of my own morality laws?

Straw man example: you just accused me of being obviously upset with you on violating a code of ethics, when I made no such statement. Arguing against a point that was never made is an example of putting up a straw man. Google is your friend.

(edited for typos)

I'll say this, I'm sorry for being disingenuous, I do not mean to, as you read what I have posted, in context and made assumptions, I am merely addressing the premise on which the argument has been made.

As one who is so educated in the sciences and theory of evolution as yourself, should it not be easy to spot the incorrect context and easy to illustrate how wrong I used it?  For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?  If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Quote from: "defendor"For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?

No. Do you believe that our sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe that applying leeches to ones self can cure diseases and infections? If you answered no to either of those questions, then you should also agree that it's not correct to join the masses.

Quote from: "defendor"If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Scientific progress is the things that is showing an evolutionary advantage, so those not accepting of and those not supporting scientific research and it's conclusions are going against survival. Personally, I want to see the day when energy, food and water are made so abundant, at will and so cheaply that there will be no starving people or killing over those resources. I see things like teaching bad, religiously skewed, faux science to children as a hindrance to what I want see of scientific progress.

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?

No. Do you believe that our sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe that applying leeches to ones self can cure diseases and infections? If you answered no to either of those questions, then you should also agree that it's not correct to join the masses.

I don't think the Catholic Church does believe that, anymore at least

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Scientific progress is the things that is showing an evolutionary advantage, so those not accepting of and those not supporting scientific research and it's conclusions are going against survival. Personally, I want to see the day when energy, food and water are made so abundant, at will and so cheaply that there will be no starving people or killing over those resources. I see things like teaching bad, religiously skewed, faux science to children as a hindrance to what I want see of scientific progress.

So scientifically, if a group came together under one single banner to wipe out the earth (i.e. Nazi's) or promote the theory of a "master race" (isn't that thought evolution?)  On what scientific theory would you say that contradicts the explanation of "survival of the fittest"?

Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

Quote from: "defendor"I'll say this, I'm sorry for being disingenuous, I do not mean to, as you read what I have posted, in context and made assumptions, I am merely addressing the premise on which the argument has been made.

You were creating Straw Man arguments. Strike one for ignoring your error and trying to shift the blame to me. That won't fly.

Quote from: "defendor"As one who is so educated in the sciences and theory of evolution as yourself, should it not be easy to spot the incorrect context and easy to illustrate how wrong I used it?  

Yes, it is easy to spot, and I've already answered your other question by clearly stating that I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you those subjects. Another strike for making me repeat myself when I was very clear with you.

Quote from: "defendor"For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?  If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Blather and nonsense.

Here is what you need to do:

Stop being disruptive on this forum, or you will be banned. The forum does not exist for you to post nonsense or to play games. If you wish to have rational discourse, and have a genuine desire to continue here, then knock off the trolling, and show that you can participate without being disruptive. This is your second warning.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?

No. Do you believe that our sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe that applying leeches to ones self can cure diseases and infections? If you answered no to either of those questions, then you should also agree that it's not correct to join the masses.

I don't think the Catholic Church does believe that, anymore at least

The important part of your sentence is: "[...]anymore at least[.]"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Scientific progress is the things that is showing an evolutionary advantage, so those not accepting of and those not supporting scientific research and it's conclusions are going against survival. Personally, I want to see the day when energy, food and water are made so abundant, at will and so cheaply that there will be no starving people or killing over those resources. I see things like teaching bad, religiously skewed, faux science to children as a hindrance to what I want see of scientific progress.

So scientifically, if a group came together under one single banner to wipe out the earth (i.e. Nazi's) or promote the theory of a "master race" (isn't that thought evolution?) On what scientific theory would you say that contradicts the explanation of "survival of the fittest"?

I have no idea what you're asking here, I could make an assumption, but I'd rather not.

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

So that no one has to starve or be killed for those things. If you're going to try to regress this down an very boring trial of why questions I have some advice: just save some time and get to your point.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world lol

Quote from: "Whitney"So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

So how is that not survival of the fittest.

McQ you didn't answer a single question of mine, I don't have the "correct" techniques to setting up a debate, but how does that disqualify my ideas as false?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

So how is that not survival of the fittest.

McQ you didn't answer a single question of mine, I don't have the "correct" techniques to setting up a debate, but how does that disqualify my ideas as false?

And, strike three. Banned for failing to follow the directives of a forum moderator after two board warnings. And by the way, I don't answer to you until you show you are not here simply trolling, as you were warned of.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

So how is that not survival of the fittest.

McQ you didn't answer a single question of mine, I don't have the "correct" techniques to setting up a debate, but how does that disqualify my ideas as false?

And, strike three. Banned for failing to follow the directives of a forum moderator after two board warnings. And by the way, I don't answer to you until you show you are not here simply trolling, as you were warned of.

Seven day ban?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world :hmm: I'm not nor did I or anyone else imply that they are a Social Darwinist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dar ... Darwinists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#Social_Darwinists)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Seven day ban?

What? Too long?

Quote from: "McQ"What? Too long?

No, you just made it sound like it was permanent. However, I quickly realized after I posted that that it wasn't, as his name is not pink.

Off-topic

I hope no one minds me for bumping into this thread.
But can someone please answer my question in the creationism section of this forum about evolution?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "McQ"What? Too long?

No, you just made it sound like it was permanent. However, I quickly realized after I posted that that it wasn't, as his name is not pink.

I actually manually move perm banned users into the banned group...so their name won't necessarily change colors on a perm ban.  So, it doesn't hurt to ask if you are not sure.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "McQ"What? Too long?

No, you just made it sound like it was permanent. However, I quickly realized after I posted that that it wasn't, as his name is not pink.

I actually manually move perm banned users into the banned group...so their name won't necessarily change colors on a perm ban.  So, it doesn't hurt to ask if you are not sure.

Ah, okay.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world :hmm: I'm not nor did I or anyone else imply that they are a Social Darwinist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dar ... Darwinists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#Social_Darwinists)

Well you do cull dumb annoying people... sometimes.