16
   

Athiests prejudice against theistic beliefs

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 11:12 pm
@Ionus,
Your intended use is designed to misinform. It's like scoffing at classical music fans because they claim to like music written past 1820.

More simply; strawman.


Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 12:08 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
Your intended use is designed to misinform.
Your ESP has failed you. You do not know my intent. I have used the words within their meanings.
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 12:51 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
I'm one of the most hardcore atheists on A2K, yet I would probably be defined as an agnostic who is so incredibly skeptical of all god-claims so far presented that "atheist" is the most applicable label. Officially, you'd want to call me an agnostic I suppose, but that label implies ambivalence to me, when I'm certainly not that.


Well said!
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 01:01 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
Certainly the kind of logic used in theistic arguments is devoid of any real logic. Take Pascals Wager for example. So obviously flawed it's not funny, yet still presented as a rational, logical reason for belief.


My own objection to Pascal's Wager is that it assumes you can assign some finite probability to God's existence when the question is one of uncertainty, not probability.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:39 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
You are showing very little understanding of Christian religion. Hell is not the place where fire and brim stone has been speculated as existing.....it is simply not knowing God. Words do not do justice to the concept, but those who believe will meet God. Those who dont will face an enternity without God. God in this sense is somewhat similar to reaching enlightenment.


Your explanation sounds acceptable to me, but it is not the definition put forth by most Christians I hear from. Fire and brimstone as a place is quite well defined. I would agree with your proposition, it's the literal definition I have problems with. I don't think it's my understand that is the problem, it's your assumption that your concept is the normal one.

Most Christians, at least in my small part of the world, believe the Baptist view, that acceptance of Jesus is the only way to 'heaven'. They mean this very literally.

There are many different understandings of God, I like your's and it is compatible with my views, but I don't think it is the prevalent one.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:42 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
We're talking death penalty here. You'll find a vast range of beliefs (sometimes religious) on the matter. I say it's never right, and have no respect for the dissenting view.


Laughing

On that we agree.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 02:00 pm
@Ionus,

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, it sounds like he thinks he is the god mouthpiece....... You have no knowledge of this topic and you want to criticise those who do for sounding knowledgable......put your ego away.


You have the audacity to talk of anothers ego. Your arrogance only outweighs your supreme assholeness
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:53 pm
@IRFRANK,
Then I would also add that Christians show very little understanding of Christian religion. I was raised by Franciscans and they were very knowledgable in these matters, far more then the average "protestant" practitioner. I suppose the difference would be the same between a very experienced Buddha monk and a seni-practicing Buddhist from the street.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:56 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
You have the audacity to talk of anothers ego.
Yes I do. What is the extent of your knowledge in this topic ? Yet you criticise others.....better to elevate yourself by putting down others...the other way you might be a victim of tall poppy syndrome.

Quote:
Your arrogance only outweighs your supreme assholeness
Your literary genius outweighs your knowledge of religion.
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 11:26 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus...

You wrote:
You are showing very little understanding of Christian religion. Hell is not the place where fire and brim stone has been speculated as existing.....it is simply not knowing God. Words do not do justice to the concept, but those who believe will meet God. Those who dont will face an enternity without God. God in this sense is somewhat similar to reaching enlightenment.


In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky (using character "Father Zossima" as a mouthpiece) provides what seems to me an even more subtle vision of Hell than you've given us. Apparently, "the Damned" go off to Heaven with the rest of the gang, but upon arrival they realise they have wasted a lifetime of opportunity to love others. They understand how wonderful a thing love and sacrifice were on earth, but they can't manage it any more. They realise they have missed out on life's greatest gift and must endure an eternity of regret. Is that sort of the same thing as you are talking about? Or in your version do "the Damned" never even get to see the Lord?

(But I guess if we equate your "God" with Dostoevsky's "love", then your visions are the same. Right?)

Quote:
Fathers and teachers, I ponder, "What is hell?" I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love. Once in infinite existence, immeasurable in time and space, a spiritual creature was given on his coming to earth the power of saying, "I am and I love." Once, only once, there was given him a moment of active lifting love, and for that was earthly life given him, and with it times and seasons. And that happy creature rejected the priceless gift, prized it and loved it not, scorned it and remained callous. Such a one, having left the earth, sees Abraham's bosom and talks with Abraham as we are told in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and beholds heaven and can go up to the Lord. But that is just his torment, to rise up to the Lord without ever having loved, to be brought close to those who have loved when he has despised their love. For he sees clearly and says to himself, "Now I have understanding, and though I now thirst to love, there will be nothing great, no sacrifice in my love, for my earthly life is over, and Abraham will not come even with a drop of living water (that is the gift of earthly active life) to cool the fiery thirst of spiritual love which burns in me now, though I despised it on earth; there is no more life for me and will be no more time! Even though I would gladly give my life for others, it can never be, for that life is passed which can be sacrificed for love, and now there is a gulf fixed between that life and this existence."

http://www.classicreader.com/book/276/41/
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 11:59 pm
@Ionus,
I hope that wasn't directed at me!

There are confused people all over of many persuasions.
I take your point well though, and criticism of true Christians was not my intent.

As I understand it though, there are two faiths that do proclaim that their way is the 'only' way. Christianity and Islam. Is this not true?

Do you believe that a good Buddhist can reach enlightenment or Buddhahood and is this comparable to heaven?
Wilso
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 12:44 am
@Oylok,
Quote:

I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.


This statement completely exemplifies the bottomless depth of christian arrogance, and it's not the first time I've heard a manifestation of it. Christians, do maintain, at the very core of their being, that ONLY christians are capable of feeling love. That's their ultimate fall back position, and source of their own belief in their own spiritual superiority.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 12:46 am
@Oylok,
Quote:
in your version do "the Damned" never even get to see the Lord?
I am fairly certain the words I was taught are "they will never know God" which seems to me a vague description...it could mean regret, it could mean never "seeing" God.
Quote:
if we equate your "God" with Dostoevsky's "love", then your visions are the same. Right?
Correct. But I would have said versions, not visions....

I have since rejected the idea of a personal God who will take care of us...I think that was a knee jerk response to help people be confident and to do the "right" thing. The idea of a God like a force to the universe, pushing life into 3 dimensions and heading towards some goal, I find rather compelling but see no need to force it on someone else. many of the images of God and his nature are left out of Islam because it was thought they do more harm than good.....thus the ban on images....and also Mohammed did not want any worship of himself. So the same God has many different takes on what God is.

There were even some early Gospels that said things like Judas went to heaven because he was doing God's work by helping Jesus die for mankind's sins......these were all left out of the Bible when it was compiled.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:03 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
I hope that wasn't directed at me!
I have never heard you say anything wrong on any subject....yet Very Happy
Quote:
criticism of true Christians was not my intent.
Part of my intent was to highlight the multi faceted nature of any religion. I dont have anything but a basic knowledge of Buddhism but it seems it would be harder to get them to disagree about how to achieve enlightenment.....whereas Christians have murdered each other for about 300 yrs on exactly that.
Quote:
As I understand it though, there are two faiths that do proclaim that their way is the 'only' way. Christianity and Islam. Is this not true?
My understanding of Islam is that you can still go to heaven if you believe in Christianity or Judaism. I am not sure what it says about non-desert religions. Certainly many Christians and Jews have had a very narrow interpretation of what is core belief, but I think this is more due to the person who stands out in front of them rather than any intent by the founder/s.
Quote:
Do you believe that a good Buddhist can reach enlightenment or Buddhahood and is this comparable to heaven?
I dont know how much enlightenment is possible on earth. I only have one concern about Buddhism and that is it seems very introverted. I object to monasteries that lock up some of our best people who could be out in the world doing good. This also applies to my mentors the Franciscans . I do think Buddahood is comparable to heaven, which is also supportive of why I think its degree is limited on earth.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:06 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
Christians, do maintain, at the very core of their being, that ONLY christians are capable of feeling love.
That is not true of the love of which you refer, but rather to a spiritual love of God as a purpose for life, rather than a hastily thrown together association of family and friends. We are capable of love of people. Religious love is more ethereal.
Wilso
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:22 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Religious love is more ethereal.


This is not a manifestation of your arrogance?

Ionus wrote:

rather than a hastily thrown together association of family and friends.


You people are SO ******* arrogant, you can't even see it for what it is. Far from being better than others, you actually worse. You are selfish scum. Get fucked you worthless lowlife piece of ****.
Wilso
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:24 am
This is a Liberal party voter if ever I've seen one. You pricks are so ******* shallow, that wearing a sign on your head couldn't make you more obvious. I can see right through the likes of you.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:32 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
This is not a manifestation of your arrogance?
Thats correct. I am not religious.

Quote:
You people are SO ******* arrogant
What do you mean you people ?

Quote:
Far from being better than others, you actually worse. You are selfish scum. Get fucked you worthless lowlife piece of ****.
But we are better than you, right ? I mean that much is obvious.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:33 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
I can see right through the likes of you.
Funny how all your posts end up with you saying how clever you are...frightened of reality are we ?
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 06:26 am
@BillW - I used to very much identify as a Deist (my previous screen name and daily reminder to spellcheck was "Diest TKO"), and later as a Pandeist when I realized that my belief in one being was only an artifact belief from monotheistic Christian society. No particular event or argument made me into an atheist, I simply one day realized that I had been one for a long time.

@Ionus - We all know babies are born believing only in breasts. Stop being stubborn.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2022 at 12:26:05