Shapeless wrote:real life wrote:Is it just because the Soviets and Chinese have taken atheism to it's logical conclusion in building their societies, and you're uncomfortable with the results?
In what way are those societies the "logical conclusion" of atheism? Is it because regulating the beliefs of an entire population is inherent in the definition of atheism? Or because the cessation of private ownership is encoded in atheism? Or some other reason?
I wonder how reallife will incorporate CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM into his belief structure.
I mean really, when you look at what JESUS taught and said, I'm pretty sure HE would be a communist. JESUS is a COMMIE!
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Christian_communism
real life wrote:It is undeniable that atheism has been and is a core belief and the official policy of nearly every nation that has been long ruled by a communist regime.
No one is doubting that atheism was a part of Soviet and Maoist politics, as it continues to be for North Korea. So was strict censhorship and the (supposed) dissolving of class structure. Are you claiming that strict censorship and the dissolving of class structure are also inherent in (as you defined it) "the denial in the existence of God"? Is there any particular reason why you choose to reduce Soviet and Moaist communism to its atheistic component and not, say, its censorship or class component? (Of course, as everyone here has pointed out, there
is a particular reason: you're trying to discredit atheism through a feeble guilt-by-association.) My question remains: why do you think the atrocities of communism represent the logical conclusion of "the denial in the existence of God"? It might help if you show us what the definitions of censorship, class structure, mass executions and totalitarian rule have in common with the definition of atheism.
Note to rl - all atheists, in common with communists, are known to be water-drinking air-breathers, too - perhaps you're on to something here ... the "coincidences" mount.
maporsche wrote:Shapeless wrote:real life wrote:Is it just because the Soviets and Chinese have taken atheism to it's logical conclusion in building their societies, and you're uncomfortable with the results?
In what way are those societies the "logical conclusion" of atheism? Is it because regulating the beliefs of an entire population is inherent in the definition of atheism? Or because the cessation of private ownership is encoded in atheism? Or some other reason?
I wonder how reallife will incorporate CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM into his belief structure.
I mean really, when you look at what JESUS taught and said, I'm pretty sure HE would be a communist. JESUS is a COMMIE!
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Christian_communism
Do you see no distinction between voluntary sharing within a community, and the banning of private property combined with forced servitude?
No, I guess you don't.
These weak arguments about 'Christian communism' have been around for years, and are great for laughs but that's about it.
So if I donate money to feed the poor , I am a communist?
C'mon maporsche. You can do better than that.
You're an atheist too real life. You're an athiest when it comes to Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Venus etc.
We just take it one god further than you do!
Wilso has pointed out correctly that one has to be pretty discriminating when it comes to picking out one's own particular god.
One could go the easy route and select, or to tell the tale better, be selected by God the Almighty, He has a five or six thousand year track record, has a chosen people yet allows just about anybody else to worship and adore Him. Has multiple persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as opposed to being three gods. See Father Muldowney for a fuller explanation. Water baptism is preferred entry into relationship but does accept revival inspired tearfilled screaming for mercy rejections of sin.
(See Benny Hinn)
Though it is rare, one could choose G-d as a Jew, rather than by one of the hundreds of kinds of Christians, but it's a difficult thing to start in mid-life, especially if your mother wasn't Jewish. You could tell people she was from BIROBIDZHAN and maybe they would believe you.
But there are so many other gods to choose from why stop with one?
How about Allah? He's got everything God Almighty has and more. He's got a perfect Prophet, wrote a whole book and not one mistake, not one. AND none of his interpreters over the two thousand years made any mistakes either. That's a batting average for you. Plus, Allah isn't the kind of God who sticks his nose into your life, except that you have to pray six times a day and commit to a cleanliness regime that is more suited to someone with obsessive compulsive disorder than your normal Mo. Still you've got to admire a god who is willing to stand by and watch as 400,000 followers drown in a tsunami or better still, as members of his two major sects murder, maim and bomb eachother because they can't agree on which of the Prophets relatives had the real publishing rights. You can't be anymore handsoff than that.
Unless you are the Budda who isn't a god at all, but boy howdy does he have a way for you. You get enlightenment, not unlike those raptures seen in the Holiness Church on Ave C, Robert Lee, TX, but deeper and longer lasting. You might dance for joy for forty nine days as the Budda did, you might have to dance for forty-nine before you get enlightened, either way, it is a life changing experience.
Or you can try on the Brahman. Part of you, all of you, all of creation, the whole, the pieces, the Absolute, the Supreme Being, the Ultimate Reality, the Divine, you can see where this is going. You will end up right back where you were before if you stay on this same plane of existence.
Joe(I took the last train for the coast)Nation
Christmas and Easter are just part of the American Culture and unless you work really hard at it for a principle, it is almost impossible to avoid or ignore. I do think to be fair that more attention needs to be held to the other religious holidays in the work force, but I don't see it happening.
I am Christian, but I don't believe in celebrating Jesus' birth or death on those days for the simple reason that we are not told to in the bible of which I believe.
However, I do celebrate each holiday as a family holiday for family and friends. Sometimes I wonder if I should since I feel that way, but for most part, it such an enjoyable holiday I can't see what would be wrong with it.
This subject gets brought every year in one way or another
Wilso wrote:You're an atheist too real life. You're an athiest when it comes to Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Venus etc.
We just take it one god further than you do!
Good point, Wilso. I agree.
Hope you're having a great day 'down under'.
A related question, (maybe you addressed it before and I missed it. If so, I apologize) does the facility where you work have a formal observance of Christmas?
If so, how do you approach that? Just curious. Not trying to pose a trick question or anything on this.
real life wrote:Wilso wrote:You're an atheist too real life. You're an athiest when it comes to Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Venus etc.
We just take it one god further than you do!
Good point, Wilso. I agree.
Of course you agree, but you fail to recognize the absurdity of believing in your god above all others. But I forgot, you have been given the divine truth from the holy spirit who has touched your soul in so many unprovable ways.
Why should I believe in Jesus Christ over Zues?
maporsche wrote:real life wrote:Wilso wrote:You're an atheist too real life. You're an athiest when it comes to Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Venus etc.
We just take it one god further than you do!
Good point, Wilso. I agree.
Of course you agree, but you fail to recognize the absurdity of believing in your god above all others. But I forgot, you have been given the divine truth from the holy spirit who has touched your soul in so many unprovable ways.
Why should I believe in Jesus Christ over Zues?
Well, maporsche that is a fair question.
I am sitting at a computer in an office.
If I saw your tomorrow and you said, 'Prove to me scientifically that you were sitting at computer in an office yesterday', I could not do so.
So, it depends on what kind of 'proof' you are referring to.
Scientific proof requires observation, repeatability, falsifiability, etc.
Historical/legal proof is quite another thing. By it's very nature, history and most of the events we experience cannot be repeated. So they are not 'scientifically provable'.
I believe in God because of my experience. No, I can't 'prove' it to you scientifically.
But I pray, and very often I have received that which I prayed for. Frequently these are things I would have had no control or influence over, so it's unlikely that I caused a 'self fulfilling' scenario of any kind.
real life wrote:maporsche wrote:real life wrote:Wilso wrote:You're an atheist too real life. You're an athiest when it comes to Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Venus etc.
We just take it one god further than you do!
Good point, Wilso. I agree.
Of course you agree, but you fail to recognize the absurdity of believing in your god above all others. But I forgot, you have been given the divine truth from the holy spirit who has touched your soul in so many unprovable ways.
Why should I believe in Jesus Christ over Zues?
Well, maporsche that is a fair question.
I am sitting at a computer in an office.
If I saw your tomorrow and you said, 'Prove to me scientifically that you were sitting at computer in an office yesterday', I could not do so.
So, it depends on what kind of 'proof' you are referring to.
Scientific proof requires observation, repeatability, falsifiability, etc.
Historical/legal proof is quite another thing. By it's very nature, history and most of the events we experience cannot be repeated. So they are not 'scientifically provable'.
I believe in God because of my experience. No, I can't 'prove' it to you scientifically.
But I pray, and very often I have received that which I prayed for. Frequently these are things I would have had no control or influence over, so it's unlikely that I caused a 'self fulfilling' scenario of any kind.
The answered prayer reason for believing is full of problems RL. 1st, many Christians agree that god answers all prayers. Those answers could be 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe later' (or the various variations of these words). The kicker is that god doesn't tell you his answer, so you don't know if god is really answering anything.
Say my mother falls ill and the doctors give her a 50/50 chance of living. I then heartfully convert to Christianity and pray that Jesus will save my mother. If she lives, I would likely put a 'W' in the prayer column; god said 'yes'. BUT the doctors said that it was a 50/50 shot anyway, so how do I know it was prayer?
Say my mother died, if I'm a devout Christian I would probably say that god must have answered 'no' and chault another 'W' in the prayer column. I would justify my mother dying and god not saving her with some excuse like 'God wanted my mother with him in heaven', or 'God must be putting these challenges in my life for a higher purpose'. BUT the doctors said that it was a 50/50 shot anyway, so how do I know that it was prayer?
In both cases it would be out of my control if my mother died. So to say that you believe in god because he answered your prayers is a little disingenious at best. When you have the 'yes', 'no', 'maybe later' approach to prayer answering, EVERY PRAYER is answered, which means that really no prayer is answered.
real life wrote:
If I saw your tomorrow and you said, 'Prove to me scientifically that you were sitting at computer in an office yesterday', I could not do so.
Perhaps - even highly likely - you could, through a variety of means. Does the security system of the office building require you to identify yourself, sign in and declare destination on entry? Does the computer system behind the terminal at which you were sitting require you to log in as an authorized user with a valid password? Were there any witnesses to your presence at the computer? Are your fingerprints on the keyboard in some discernably distinctive relationship to other fingerprints which might be traced through any of a variety of methods? Is there any fiber, DNA, or other physical evidence to suport your claim of having been at that computer in that office at that time?
Quote:So, it depends on what kind of 'proof' you are referring to.
Not really; any valid, verifiable proof would do, and the more of it the better.
Quote:Scientific proof requires observation, repeatability, falsifiability, etc.
Historical/legal proof is quite another thing. By it's very nature, history and most of the events we experience cannot be repeated. So they are not 'scientifically provable'.
That simply is not so. "Repeatability" does not perforce entail replication of the event at study; just as validly it can pertain to multiply independent verification of the event at study. If, for instance, numerous journals, diaries, news accounts, and/or treatises or other texts of verifiable provenance corroborate one another (particularly without reference to one another) pertaining to the event at study, the qualification of "Repeatability" most certainly is met - the observation has been repeatedly and independently recorded.
Quote:I believe in God because of my experience. No, I can't 'prove' it to you scientifically.
But I pray, and very often I have received that which I prayed for. Frequently these are things I would have had no control or influence over, so it's unlikely that I caused a 'self fulfilling' scenario of any kind.
All well and good ... and worthy - eminently and inalienably so - of respect in and of itself, however, proof of nothing beyond that you subscribe to a particular belief set.
Real life wrote:
Quote:If I saw your tomorrow and you said, 'Prove to me scientifically that you were sitting at computer in an office yesterday', I could not do so.
So odd. All this time I thought that if I committed an axe murder and then sat down at my computer desk that the police could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did it and I would go to jail.
Now, I understand that they cannot prove anything like that "scientifically" so all right,..
.... just wait until that vice president comes by this afternoon to ask about his crumby report.
Joe(I feel so much better about this)Nation
timberlandko wrote:real life wrote:
If I saw your tomorrow and you said, 'Prove to me scientifically that you were sitting at computer in an office yesterday', I could not do so.
Perhaps - even highly likely - you could, through a variety of means.
Like to see you try.
timberlandko wrote:Does the security system of the office building require you to identify yourself, sign in and declare destination on entry?
No.
timberlandko wrote:Does the computer system behind the terminal at which you were sitting require you to log in as an authorized user with a valid password?
No.
timberlandko wrote:Were there any witnesses to your presence at the computer?
No.
timberlandko wrote:Are your fingerprints on the keyboard in some discernably distinctive relationship to other fingerprints which might be traced through any of a variety of methods?
Likely there are.
How would that show that I used that computer yesterday?
All you have is circumstantial evidence that I have handled that keyboard on some date.
It may not have even been in the office when I did so.
Did you think this would be scientific proof, or in any way conclusive?
timberlandko wrote:Is there any fiber, DNA, or other physical evidence to suport your claim of having been at that computer in that office at that time?
Any fiber or DNA would, again, only be circumstantial evidence at best that I MAY have been in the office on some date.
However, fibers and DNA can also be planted.
This is nowhere close to conclusive proof.
Course I do. What kind of outcast loner do you take me for.
Chirstmas and Easter are not only Christian celebrations, they are also western celebrations (and in many cases eastern celebrations). Christmas brings many positive emotions. Sure, it can become a materialistic thing, but you control that. Why should I deny myself the pleasure of giving (and receiving) gifts?
Wilso wrote:real life wrote:
A related question, (maybe you addressed it before and I missed it. If so, I apologize) does the facility where you work have a formal observance of Christmas?
If so, how do you approach that? Just curious. Not trying to pose a trick question or anything on this.
Not automatically. There is a Christmas party that's put on for families, children etc. Those that want to be involved choose to have a small contribution taken out of their pay each fortnight.
Well, it's good that they seem to have made an effort to let those who wish to celebrate do so, while respecting the wishes of those who choose not to as well.
I'm sure you do not celebrate any of the religious aspect of Christmas with your family. However, do you give gifts to your children at Christmas?
real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:real life wrote:
If I saw your tomorrow and you said, 'Prove to me scientifically that you were sitting at computer in an office yesterday', I could not do so.
Perhaps - even highly likely - you could, through a variety of means.
Like to see you try.
Didn't say
I could, I said it was prolly quite likely
YOU could. And as for "circumstantial evidence", well, enough of it works just fine for an able prosecutor - juries convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the time. One or 2 bits of circumstantial evidence - no big deal. A pile of circumstantial evidence all leading to the same conclusion - different deal alltogether. Roll into the equation no contradictory evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, very much bigger deal.
Sorry to interupt, but
WHAT THE HELL HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE TOPIC?!?
Just a bit confused.
real life wrote:
But I pray, and very often I have received that which I prayed for. Frequently these are things I would have had no control or influence over, so it's unlikely that I caused a 'self fulfilling' scenario of any kind.
If you pray for rain long enough, it eventually does fall. If you pray for floodwaters to abate, they eventually do. The same happens in the absence of prayers.
Steve Allen
