ATHIESTS IN ASIA LIVE with no belief system

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;43445 wrote:

Mr. Bing, not everyone in this world has health care or has others rushing to their side to take care of them. If it were not for christian missionaries the suffering would be so much greater in so many other areas of the world. Please get the focus off of your idealistic vision, and consider how many children will be able to go to school for the first time, or have their medical needs provided for. You really need to stop putting cultures ahead of childs life. We are living in a changing world, and the needs of people are great. And Christians are making life so much better for so many, I'm sorry if Christians donot fit into your political correctness, but we are needed, and we will not stop helping the needy.

Then Mr.Campbell, help the needy for their own sakes, and for the sake of doing good. Not with the intent to convert them. That is unseemly.

1 Reply

@Adam Bing,

Adam Bing;43456 wrote:

Then Mr.Campbell, help the needy for their own sakes, and for the sake of doing good. Not with the intent to convert them. That is unseemly.

Indeed, there is also a school of thought that many of the african nations have become so dependant on the aid that is given, they have lost the will to fend for themselves. We seem intent on giving aid at every opportunity. Allow ing their leaders to stay in power.

Some believe, and I am coming around to the idea, that we should stop the aid, cancel all their debts and allow them to devolp and fend for themselves. This way any of the corupt governments (most are) will be overthrown and true democracy installed. Now there will be alot of bloodshed and death. But if you think about it up until 150 years ago most of africans were living in huts, they had no time to develop there own sense of being. The British basically installed themselves as the rulers and used their own laws to govern the people, when they left it was a free-for-all and decended into where they are now, very similar to when the Romans left Britain and we had the 'Dark Ages'.

My point is the fact the church has aided these nations to the point where they have been paralised into a state of dependacy that can only be broken if it is stopped. They will then have to fend for themselves and be able to grow and develop.

Apologies for going off topic, I just wanted to make that point.

Also if the catholic church would allow the use of condoms the amount of people in africa with AIDS would reduce dramatically. A point which sickens me that a piece of rubber could save a life, yet thoe pope does not condone it,...Disgusting.

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;43481 wrote:

Indeed, there is also a school of thought that many of the african nations have become so dependant on the aid that is given, they have lost the will to fend for themselves. We seem intent on giving aid at every opportunity. Allow ing their leaders to stay in power.

Some believe, and I am coming around to the idea, that we should stop the aid, cancel all their debts and allow them to devolp and fend for themselves. This way any of the corupt governments (most are) will be overthrown and true democracy installed. Now there will be alot of bloodshed and death. But if you think about it up until 150 years ago most of africans were living in huts, they had no time to develop there own sense of being. The British basically installed themselves as the rulers and used their own laws to govern the people, when they left it was a free-for-all and decended into where they are now, very similar to when the Romans left Britain and we had the 'Dark Ages'.

My point is the fact the church has aided these nations to the point where they have been paralised into a state of dependacy that can only be broken if it is stopped. They will then have to fend for themselves and be able to grow and develop.

Apologies for going off topic, I just wanted to make that point.

Also if the catholic church would allow the use of condoms the amount of people in africa with AIDS would reduce dramatically. A point which sickens me that a piece of rubber could save a life, yet thoe pope does not condone it,...Disgusting.

If those in Africa became Christians and followed the Scriptures, there would be no need for a piece of rubber, they would understand that sex is to be kept pure within the marriage, and sleeping around is not part of Gods plan. And that is made plain in the Bible, it is because people ignored the Biblical warnings, that so many find themselves in trouble today.
And the reason Christians tell people about Christ is not only to help them in this life, but to prepare them for the life to come. It is not the Christian church that has paralised the African people, it is all to often their corrupt governments.

1 Reply

@DesertDave,

and so saints become...

0 Replies

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;43483 wrote:

If those in Africa became Christians and followed the Scriptures, there would be no need for a piece of rubber, they would understand that sex is to be kept pure within the marriage, and sleeping around is not part of Gods plan. And that is made plain in the Bible, it is because people ignored the Biblical warnings, that so many find themselves in trouble today.
And the reason Christians tell people about Christ is not only to help them in this life, but to prepare them for the life to come. It is not the Christian church that has paralised the African people, it is all to often their corrupt governments.

Of course. The poor, dirty, ignorant, corrupt African needs us. Christiantity is the genesis of the 'white man's burden" rationale to plunder indigenous cultures of their inherent richness. Have you a clue Sir, of the Africa that was before the Christians ventured there. You would, if you ever venture beyond the bible and try some reading. I could help point you to books on archeology, anthropology and history. And don't worry they are not anti-religious or contan any excessive scientific jargon.

Cordially.

0 Replies

@DesertDave,

?ATHIESTS IN ASIA LIVE with no belief system?

This sentence seems strange. If you?re an atheist, than by definition you have no religious belief system. If you?re an atheist who happens to live in Asia, than you still? by definition? have no religious belief system.

?As I stated in another thread, who started this notion that you need to have faith to live well??

All your threads on this issue start with the premise that everyone thinks that we all need to believe in God, and then you try to dispute this premise. I?m interested to know where you live and what ppls attitudes towards religion are there, because I don?t think this premise holds up in my part of the country. I live on the New Hampshire/ Vermont border. The entire New England area is pretty socially liberal. We don?t wear our religion on our sleeves here and I usually don?t find out who goes to church or believes in God unless I get to know them pretty well. I think if you went up to most ppl here and said, ?you don?t have to believe in God to be a good, well adjusted person?, they?d tell you that you were stating the obvious.

Another thing: there are plenty of atheists here in the US. You don?t have to go all the way to Asia to find atheists who are good, well adjusted ppl.

?They're mostly happy, well adjusted, family oriented, successful regular people but also Atheist due to practicing Buddhism and Shintoism?.?

I guess Buddhists can be considered atheists if you use that word to mean they don?t believe in a supreme being/ God. But I use the word, and I think most ppl use the word, to mean someone who doesn?t have any religious beliefs at all. Like? I wouldn?t consider a really religious Buddhist monk to be an atheist.

?From responses I recieved in other threads, most of you think you need a belief system to be happy or fulfilled - what crazt crap is that? At best organized religions area huge crutch?

Buddhism and Shintoism ARE religions and they do have belief systems. A religion doesn?t have to be monotheistic in order to be a religion.

?I know Atheists in Asia that are much better christians here in America. Case in point, the recent Amish school girl killings in Pennsylvania. The Amish invited the killers parents to dinner and forgave the killer. That stuff never happens with any demonination of Christianity or Catholicism - NEVER.?

But this makes no sense. The Amish ARE Christians who live here in America.

0 Replies

@Campbell34,

"More often it's Catholic's like Bill O'Reilly spewing hatred, that guy never loves, forgives, shows compassion or understanding"

This describes many Christians. The vast majority of Christians (and ppl in general) are narrow minded, and most of those on this board fit the book burning Christian steriotype to a t. Still, isn't comparing all Christians to a conservative, talk tv demagogue a little unfair? Also, I bet Christians in Europe are a different bunch than the ones here.

0 Replies

@DesertDave,

Quote:

And the reason Christians tell people about Christ is not only to help them in this life, but to prepare them for the life to come. It is not the Christian church that has paralised the African people, it is all to often their corrupt governments.

Campbell34

I agree!

Quote:

“
Quote:
ATHIESTS IN ASIA LIVE with no belief system”
Adam

This sentence seems strange. If you’re an atheist, than by definition you have no religious belief system. If you’re an atheist who happens to live in Asia, than you still… by definition… have no religious belief system.

Not Here

That's a good point...I find that Aetheists actually have the greatest of faith, an unshakeable faith in fact...they have this faith in their own word, and their own word is defined by the ego...so in other words, an Aetheist is defined by having unshakeable faith in the absence of God and the prescence of their own Ego.

It is actually extremely niave, because their is no proof whatsoever that God does not exist, yet their is an abundance of proof that the ego is nothing.

1 Reply

@Tulip cv,

"Aetheist is defined by having unshakeable faith in the absence of God"

Some do have an unshakable certainty. Others don't believe in a God because they feel there's no evidence that would justify such a belief, but accept that it's a theoretical possibility.

"they have this faith in their own word"

You lost me here.

"It is actually extremely niave, because their is no proof whatsoever that God does not exist"

The burden of proof is on the person that claims that something exists, not the other way around. No one can disprove God, the Flying Spagetti Monster, fairies, ghosts, Shinto spirits, ancestral spirits, or enlightenment. From a scientific perspective, an inability to rule something out is not a logical reason to believe in it.

0 Replies

@DesertDave,

Nope, don't agree with you, since Aetheist is always, as a distinguishing badge of honor, trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen, so the burden of proof is on them, and since there is no proof...so the certainty is only in what they believe. What they believe is in their own opinion.

From a scientific perspective, Sir Issaac Newton, one of the world's greatest thinkers, came to the conclusion their is a God. Science is now finally accepting the thinking that was scoffed at and ridiculed in the earlier centuries, the ability to measure energy, to understand that everything is moving and everything is energy, and that energy is gathered by humans through each other when they are not connected to the abundant energy of the universe, the divine.
In fact not believing in a Divine force is very niave and based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.

3 Replies

@Tulip cv,

Tulip;43557 wrote:

In fact not believing in a Divine force is very niave and based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.

Well I would say believing in a divine force with not one shread of scientific evidence is very naive.

Though I think Mr Adam bing has sufficint evidence that supports that the earth is older than 10,000 years old. Seeing as this is what the bible states and is the 'word of god' then I think it can be substantiated as 'evidence' there is no God.

Over to you Mr Bing.

0 Replies

@Tulip cv,

Tulip;43557 wrote:

Nope, don't agree with you, since Aetheist is always, as a distinguishing badge of honor, trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen, so the burden of proof is on them, and since there is no proof...so the certainty is only in what they believe. What they believe is in their own opinion.

From a scientific perspective, Sir Issaac Newton, one of the world's greatest thinkers, came to the conclusion their is a God. Science is now finally accepting the thinking that was scoffed at and ridiculed in the earlier centuries, the ability to measure energy, to understand that everything is moving and everything is energy, and that energy is gathered by humans through each other when they are not connected to the abundant energy of the universe, the divine.
In fact not believing in a Divine force is very niave and based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.

Tulip, logically, it is for the theist to provide the proof. If someone says god exists, he needs to prove it. The atheist doesn't need to prove anything because he is not the one making a claim.
- The theist has to prove god exists.
- The christian has to prove the resurrection happened.
- The Muslim has to prove god spoke to Mohammed.
- The Scientist has to prove Evolution happened.

1 Reply

@Adam Bing,

?Nope, don't agree with you, since Aetheist is always, as a distinguishing badge of honor, trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen, so the burden of proof is on them?

So the reason you think the burden of proof is on atheists is because you have a negative generalization of atheists? I?m sorry; that?s not a valid point. Even if it WERE true that atheists are more vocal about their disbelief than monotheists are about their belief, the burden of proof doesn?t rest on which side is more pushy. Lets say you?re reading some articles in a peer reviewed journal on some controversial issue and two experts are arguing with each other. You wouldn?t find one of them saying ?the burden of proof rests on you because you?re pushier?.

You also wouldn?t find them attacking the character of their opponents and trying to pass that off as an argument (ie: my opponents are trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen). There are many atheists who believe that everyone should be atheists. There are many religious ppl who believe that everyone should be religious. Attempting to pass off a negative generalization of your opposing group as an argument shows that you aren?t interested in a thoughtful discussion.

?and since there is no proof...so the certainty is only in what they believe. What they believe is in their own opinion?. In fact not believing in a Divine force is very niave and based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.?

These arguments can be flip flopped- [Since there?s no proof, the certainty of monotheists is only in what they believe. What they believe is their own opinion, and is based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.]

These arguments depend on the burden of proof being on the atheists, and your argument that the burden of proof is on the atheists is that atheists are pushy.

2 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

This debate between us is stuck at where the burden of proof lies. If we?re going to continue this debate (and I?m not actually enthusiastic about it), then that?s the first thing we should sort out. However, since you provided some arguments supporting the existence of God, I?ll address those right now.

?From a scientific perspective, Sir Issaac Newton, one of the world's greatest thinkers, came to the conclusion their is a God.?

Implying that, ?a respected scientific figure from history had this opinion, therefore it?s true?, is not a valid argument and there?s nothing scientific about that argument.

?Science is now finally accepting the thinking that was scoffed at and ridiculed in the earlier centuries, the ability to measure energy, to understand that everything is moving and everything is energy, and that energy is gathered by humans through each other when they are not connected to the abundant energy of the universe, the divine.?

You?re argument seems to be that everything is energy, but even if you?re right, I don?t see how that gets you ANY closer to providing evidence for the existence of God (unless you think God is energy or something, in which case we're not talking about the same thing). On a side note; you haven?t backed up these statements.

0 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;43623 wrote:

“Nope, don't agree with you, since Aetheist is always, as a distinguishing badge of honor, trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen, so the burden of proof is on them”

So the reason you think the burden of proof is on atheists is because you have a negative generalization of atheists? I’m sorry; that’s not a valid point. Even if it WERE true that atheists are more vocal about their disbelief than monotheists are about their belief, the burden of proof doesn’t rest on which side is more pushy. Lets say you’re reading some articles in a peer reviewed journal on some controversial issue and two experts are arguing with each other. You wouldn’t find one of them saying “the burden of proof rests on you because you’re pushier”.

You also wouldn’t find them attacking the character of their opponents and trying to pass that off as an argument (ie: my opponents are trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen). There are many atheists who believe that everyone should be atheists. There are many religious ppl who believe that everyone should be religious. Attempting to pass off a negative generalization of your opposing group as an argument shows that you aren’t interested in a thoughtful discussion.

“and since there is no proof...so the certainty is only in what they believe. What they believe is in their own opinion…. In fact not believing in a Divine force is very niave and based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.”

These arguments can be flip flopped- [Since there’s no proof, the certainty of monotheists is only in what they believe. What they believe is their own opinion, and is based on absolutely not one shred of scientific evidence.]

These arguments depend on the burden of proof being on the atheists, and your argument that the burden of proof is on the atheists is that atheists are pushy.

My friend, there is no question of a "badge of honor" here. Lets just focus a bit on the basic rules of arument under logic as taught to us in school.

Lets suppose I say that Evolution is a fact.

You then then say: "I don't think so. Show me."

I reply: "You show me first that Evolution is NOT a fact."

In the above exchange, I am wrong because I am asking you to prove a negative.

The responsibilty to prove belongs to the person making a claim which in this case is me, claiming that Evoution is a fact.

You do not need prove anything. The onus is on me. I need to be able to provide you with enough scientific proof demonstrating that at least the probability of Evolution occuring is a high probability. If I cannot do that, I fail.

Similarly, for someone claiming that there is a god.

I - as a nonbeliever - do not need to prove the non-existance of god. One cannot prove a negative.

The claims on the existence of god/gods need to be proven by those making the claims. Further, the proof should be about as rigorous as we require from evolution. What do I mean by that?

Well, if I were to say, Evolution is a fact because Darwin says so or his books , then you would be correct in rejecting such a proof unless the writings described actual emperical studies and more importantly, subsequent emperical data, studies and experiments verifed the fact. If they did not verify the fact, then the theory collapes. If they verifed it with caveats,then the theory requires to be modified.

Simiarly, it is not good enough to say "God exists because the Bible says so" or the "Koran says so". Emperical prooof needs to be provided.

That is all I was trying to say and hope I did a better job this time around in making the point. Thanks.

1 Reply

@Adam Bing,

Adam Bing- I agree with your argument. You did a much better job of making that point, but I was trying to say essentially the same thing when i wrote, "The burden of proof is on the person that claims that something exists, not the other way around. No one can disprove God, the Flying Spagetti Monster, fairies, ghosts, Shinto spirits, ancestral spirits, or enlightenment. From a scientific perspective, an inability to rule something out is not a logical reason to believe in it."

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;19030 wrote:

Atheists likethe one in the government of China who make a hobby of persecuting religions?

Kinda like the Christians.

Quote:

No compassion in the hundreds of Catholic charities in America helping people around the world? If you say so.

Kinda like the other thousands of non-religious charities.

0 Replies

@Tulip cv,

Tulip;43557 wrote:

Nope, don't agree with you, since Aetheist is always, as a distinguishing badge of honor, trying to shove their theory down the throat of anyone who will listen, so the burden of proof is on them, and since there is no proof...so the certainty is only in what they believe. What they believe is in their own opinion.

Again...

Kinda like the Christians.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;19030 wrote:

Atheists likethe one in the government of China who make a hobby of persecuting religions? No compassion in the hundreds of Catholic charities in America helping people around the world? If you say so.

and what is your point!? like no atrocities have happened in the name of christanity???

0 Replies

ATHIESTS IN ASIA LIVE with no belief system

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know