The KKK are right

Uh, absolutely it matters how and when we die.

This is similar to Arella Mae's claim,
…Which she quickly retracted.
Do I need to point out the implications of your statement Neo?

Pointing out the numerous flaws in the Bobble (which ought to be an embarrassment to any intelligent believer) is not at all the same as denying that there is a god, or claiming that one has proof that no god exists. You are comparing apples to oranges. Among believers, there is constant disagreement about the meaning of any particular scripture, and a good deal of argument and strife about which scripture is reliable, and which is not. After all, christians and muslims claim to worship the same god, but they each claim the supremacy of their own favorite scripture. You are selectively ignoring that i have already acknowledged that there are those who describe themselves as atheists, and who make a religion of their "atheism." That does not mean that one can characterize all atheists as being identical, which was the point i was making. In fact, a great many of the atheists i have known in my life (and i've been a doubter almost all of my life, and an atheist all of my adult life) are disgusted by the sort of fanatical enthusiasm which makes the capital "A" Atheists no different than theists. There is, of course, no way of knowing. My anecdotal experience over my lifetime is that the great majority of atheists are not capital "A" Atheists, are not devoted to disproving the existence of a god, and are atheists because they have never seen a good reason to believe that there is a god.

When you drag the Bobble into the disucussion, you seriously undermine your argument, because to the atheist, it is a work of men, and not of any god, so arguments from scripture are meaningless to an atheist. In fact, most would ask how you know that scripture is divinely inspired--given that your only source for such a contention is either scripture itself or an assertion of your blind faith, an atheist would either point out that you are employing circular logic, or are devoted to superstition.



You are once again displaying your theistic blindness. I don't believe that there is no god, i don't happen to believe that there is, but that is not a case of asserting a fact (i.e., that no god exists), it is a case of rejecting someone else's assertion to the extent that a god exists. The latter is a statement of belief, while the former is simply a rejection of the belief. I have no beliefs whatever with regard to religion, and all that i believe about theism is that it is a belief set without visible means of support--rather like a bum run out of town by the police. The difference is that, thanks to millennia of superstition, the bums are in charge.

So, no, i don't believe that there is no god. I simply don't believe any of the bullshit which has been advanced as a basis for believing that there is.



You, for one, which is why i responded to your post as i did. We have the member Foxfyre who has, within the last week, claimed that the resistance to the teaching of "intelligent design" in science classrooms is an effort at "Atheist" indoctrination. I'm not going to trouble to do searches for posts, but people such as "real life," Bartikus, Baddog and many, many others have frequently made wild claims about what it is that atheists "believe," and who allege that there is an atheist plot to destroy religion. Even so level-headed a member of this site as Georgeob1--who has a fine education from the Jesuits, and is by no means a religious fanatic--believes that there is a "secular humanist" plot to remove religion from society.



Leaving aside the ineptitude of your expression here, which tends to confuse what you are saying, you have marshaled a set of strawmen. Who here who acknowledges being an atheist has alleged that he or she possesses a vastly superior intellect to that of religionists? Who lumps all religionists together? I, for example, in my post which you have quoted, specifically referred to those who are close-minded as being those most likely to be canting dogmatists. I didn't say that all religionists are close-minded; i didn't say that all religionists are canting dogmatists. I simply observed that close-minded people who also happen to be fervently religious are those most likely to be canting dogmatists.

Intrepid, who shows himself to be a reasonably intelligent and well-educated person, fell into the same error of automatically assuming that the remark which i made about canting dogmatists was directed at all religionists. Clearly, the statement only applies to religionists who meet a specific description--those who are close-minded.

Once again, almost all atheists, at least in the United States, have come from a religious culture, and they have rejected the religious instruction of their youth in determining that they are "without god," i.e., that they are atheist (which is all that atheist means--others add all the sound and fury when they level hysterical accusations against atheists). It is hardly reasonable to argue as though all atheists were always atheists and to attack them for a belief set, when they possess none, and to suggest that they are close-minded, when it should be obvious that they have rejected a religious world view which they were given in childhood. They opened their minds at least enough to question their early indoctrination and to reject it.

Do you think that all atheists were catechized in The Church of Atheism, Incorporated, from infancy?

Vikor,

What good does it do me to tell you what I believe, why I believe it, etc., if you are going to turn right around and tell me that's not why, etc?

No one said you had to accept it for yourself or even understand it. But I know what I believe and why.

This is the problem isn't it. You can't tell me what you believe. You can show me what you want to ignore...and as an extension of that state some words that you would like to believe, but as far as I can see, you have no understanding of it, making the 'belief' just words (to you).

How can you build life principles on this subject? How can you develop an understanding of the world around you, and apply it? (or at the least, an understanding of God) You can't because you don't understand it...so the 'belief' is just words - there is no substance or meaning behind it.



In relation to this subject, you most certainly don't know why. You have said so yourself on numerous occasions. Your replies show the same.

As for me accepting it or not. You are under a misunderstaning. I do accept that is what you 'believe', and that you have what you believe are reasons for it. I accept that you cherish that 'belief'. You are more than welcome to them. What is happening here is slightly different matter. You have come to a forum where differences of beliefs exist and questioning of others is fair game. Should you not wish to debate them further, then I wish you the very best, and a happy walk with your God.

There you go again! I do know what I believe and I know why I believe it. The plain and simple fact is you don't believe the same thing and because of that you have no understanding of my beliefs.

You have absolutely no concept of what God even means from what I have seen. You continually try to put Him in a box to fix what you "logically" think He should be or do. It doesn't work that way. God is what He is. He does what He does. He has that right and I accept it and that is just the way it is.

If one believes what one believes and someone else does not believe the same or care to give the courtesy of not accepting, or indeed attacking what one believes then the simple thing is to not respond to that someone. One just sets themself up for disappointment and frustration in trying to explain their beliefs.

What would otherwise be a debate or even a discussion turns into tit for tat and nothing constructive is accomplished by anybody.

Well, this ONE thanks you for that advice.

Then please explain :
- how what God did wasn't evil
- why you would not kill a baby on his command, and
- why you need to ignore your conscience (which is based on what you believe, and human connections) to 'believe' what you do.

As far as I can see, the belief you are unable to explain is a top layer of an onion skin, with no onion underneath.

Of course I don't.

I don't need to understand of your beliefs, when you have no understanding of them yourself.

That said, I was where you were once, and couldn't answer such questions either (though I asked them of myself, rather than have others ask me).

The difference is, I've never been satisfied with "We can't know", "We shouldn't question", "He is unknowable (even while religion says it knows God)". I personally wish all my beliefs to be understood by me, and to be consistent.

I disagree with the description of God provided by the bible. I've already said I little concept of what God means, and what little concept I have, may be in error.

Not at all...humans in the bible put him in a box that isn't logical. My God needs no explanation to me, and has no inconsistencies, he just is.

By the way, your accusation of people trying to put God in a box (and the implication that it is a negative thing to do), is another way of saying "Don't Question God", or more accurately in this case "Don't Question the Bible"

Once again, I have no quarrel with this statement.

Of course. That has never been debated. What has, is the 'why', and the contradictions.

Vikor,

I would imagine you are probably as frustrated with this discussion as I am since we are getting nowhere.

This is what I believe:

I believe the Bible to be the true and inerrant Word of God. God-breathed and God-inspired.

I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost and that they are one.

I believe that Jesus Christ was crucified for my sins and after three days He rose again and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.

I believe God to be the ultimate authority in EVERYTHING. I believe that I am not to just be a talker of the Word of God but also a doer.

So, yeah, God can do whatever the heck He wants and it doesn't bother me one bit. It is His right.

I don't need to understand everything about Him. If you do, that is you. I hope this clears it up for you somewhat.

Not a great deal. My intention has only ever been to help people see consistency in their beliefs and statements. For this reason you will find me pull up people attacking christianity as well (when they become inconsistent with their stated beliefs).

That said, I realise people hold dearly to their beliefs, so it doesn't surprise me when they choose to ignore what they don't understand.


Standard Christian beliefs. Thank you for posting them, though there was little need to do so

Good for you. The only contention I have is that you need to understand in order to do (in circumstances not covered by the bible) in a good and loving way.

You have previously said it does bother you.


I already knew that

As I said, you entered a forum where differing views are fair game, and questioning them is the norm.

That said, thank you for your replies.

You are right I did say it bothers me. And I suppose on some level it does because I don't understand the reason for some of it. This is where I look to the Bible and the fact that "the carnal mind cannot understand the spiritual things of God." But I can accept it because it is God's word. Sorry for that inconsistency.

In short, my responce is: If you aren't ready to defend your beliefs, then you aren't in the right place.

T
K
O

There's no need to apologise

One of the reasons I kept bringing up the "Would you kill a baby at Gods command" question, is your statement "But I can accept it because it is God's word"...if you can't do it, then you can't accept it (in relation to this specific subject)...you can want to accept it, and try to accept it...but the only true acceptance is in the carrying out of such a command (or willingness to carry out such a command).

The other, and related reason, is to bring the light the role of the human conscience in judgement and decision making, and how it (the conscience)works with, and is influenced/affected or sometimes overriden by beliefs / religion.

...and yet, I also believe, that in different times and circumstances (with different cultural forces, norms, beliefs, difficulties, and within a group etc), we are all capable of savagery in order to survive, better our lot, or for some other deep motivation.

...the modern day equivalent (of savagery) occurs to a degree, in riots, mob mentality, and on the battlefield.

God isn't going to ask me to kill anyone. If you understood the new covenant you would know that. :wink:

Hi Arella,

I would refer you back to my previous posts with the expanded question :

I didn't think it was necessary to put the whole question in again.

The principles inherent in (the giving of / and acceptance of) such a command should be no different today than it was back then. And the question of human conscience and it's role remains the same.

Asking you to place yourselves in the Israelites shoes, and then say if you would do it - it is asking you to raise the issue within yourself of whether or not you would accept Gods command (as claimed) to do such a thing ...It is asking whether your beliefs are consistent with your statement ... is there within you a true acceptance and belief in the justness /authority/ and principles of his commands? (in this specific case -to kill babies - and to show there is, were you an Israelite so asked, you would have had to have been truly prepared to do so, and in fact done so)

Given that you don't like the idea, and have never answered yes or no, I would presume that you wouldn't carry out such a command from him. The only questions left (if you wouldn't) are for yourself to answer, in relation to acceptance (as stated by yourself), belief, conscience, and why you wouldn't do it.

...well, the other option is to ignore this all together.

So I suppose it wouldn't bother you if someone massacred your family.

It would bother me, of course. But my grief would be tempered with the knowledge of the resurrection. (Consider Job 1: 20-22)

I've had two of my grandchildren die, BTW.

Neo - It is terrible to hear about your grandchildren. I send my condolences.

Being that you find comfort in the idea of resurection, you have to admit that the it would be very difficult for you if your beliefs on this matter were found to be false.

What would you do then?

T
K
O

While I really can't speak for Neo,

...wouldn't the normal answer (and only possibe answer that I can see) be 'Get on with Life'?

Not likely.

But that is where I was 40 years ago.

Yikes! Did I just say 40 years?