The gospel is ridiculous!

[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.



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.



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



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

[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

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?

[LegendarySandwich]

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.

I may assume you are an administrator,

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

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?

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

[Tank]

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

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 you wont get banned.

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



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

[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)

[LegendarySandwich]

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)

[defendor]

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!

Are you a practicing Hindu?

I 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

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.

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

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.

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?

However 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

to 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?

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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?

[defendor]

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

[Tank]

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!

Are you a practicing Hindu?

I 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

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.

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

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.

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?

However 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

to 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?

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

[defendor]

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

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

[Stevil]

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.

[defendor]

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.

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

[Tank]

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

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.

[defendor]

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

[Tom62]

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

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.