Religions > Bible > Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2004 01:14:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cp8s27$iq6$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Rump Ranger <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
I report, you decide.
Not all Christians are conservative (I'm a liberal Christian myself who
strongly dislikes the Christian coalition) nor are all liberals
atheists (a lot of moronic atheists voted for Bush despite his
theocratic nature, sadly). Although if I had to pick one, I'd take the
secular liberal over the right-wing Bible-thumpers anyday.
Jesus was a liberal.
Supporting fag marriage and abortion? Not likely.
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 11:22:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:10:17 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.
What "witness accounts"?
Prove any such person ever existed.
It's in a book. It's in the first book ever printed. It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.
How does that prove he existed, morn?
Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.
Only in your deluded fantasies.
The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?
The dishonest bait'n'switch from the extraordinary for which there is
You believe me a deceiver.
I merely observe your intellectual dishonesty and transparent copouts.
zero evidence, to the ordinary which is conclusion drawn from
historical evidence.
What zero evidence?
Which word are you pretending not to understand?
The Bible isn't an historical document? Nobody in that book
It is a mixture of myth and legend with a modicum of history thrown
in. Full of imopossibilietes and things than never happened.
Just the same as hundreds of similar books from all the other
religions.
Do you really believe that the angel Moroni gave the golden tablets to
Joseph Smith? After all, the Book of Mormon says so, and that is just
as much a historical document.
ever existed? Is that what you're saying? The only difference between
historical evidence about Napoleon and historical evidence about Jesus is
timeframe. Historical evidence is a matter of record. Introduce me to someone
who was witness to the Napoleonic wars if that's not good enough.
Dishonest caricature. Stop pretending you're that stupid when you
obviously aren't.
The last gasp of the cornered theist who lapses into pseudo-solipsism"
you can't prove anything therefore an unevidenced thing you can't
prove is as valid as an evidenced conclusion that you can't prove
either.
Again you mention solipsism. My point is that the secular *leads* to solipsism.
If you are not a solipsist, then you engage in acts of faith.
Liar.
Do they honestly expect this transparent cop out to convince anybody,
or even to satisfy their burden of putting up when they don't shut up?
The only way I will "cop out" here is by agreeing with you.
Nope.
You have just said, "Yes."
Where did he do that? Clue: he didn't, you're lying.
By logical extension he has.
Liar.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.
Apply it to yourself.
There isn't a historical event that could contradict what I'm trying to say.
You cannot prove through historical record that there is no God. I think you're
making a lot of assumptions about me.
More bait'n'switch.
I am making no assumptions. Just reposrting what you do.
You have met far too many salesmen.
Ignorant ***** used as a red herring instead of addressing what
yoiu have been repeatedly told.
I'm not selling anything.
Good thing I never said you were.
Why don't you at least try to read for comprehsion and address what
you are told?
I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will.
No, moron, something happened that you subjectively interpret in terms
of your pre-existing belief.
Until you demonstrate it actually was that and not a figment of your
deluded imagination, you're just digging yourself in deeper.
But then you're a typical god-bothere totally devoid of common sense,
courtesy and the ability to think outside your religion even in the
real world.
God bless you.
What a deliberately, arrogantly, rude thing to saty to somebody you
know is atheist. Do you honestly imagine that rubbing your religion
inour faces is going to achieve anything?
If there actually is a hell as you believe then may you be consigned
to it for eternity for your lies, nastiness and stupidity
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 12:44:47 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:10:17 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.
What "witness accounts"?
Prove any such person ever existed.
It's in a book. It's in the first book ever printed. It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.
How does that prove he existed, morn?
Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.
Only in your deluded fantasies.
The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?
The dishonest bait'n'switch from the extraordinary for which there is
You believe me a deceiver.
I merely observe your intellectual dishonesty and transparent copouts.
zero evidence, to the ordinary which is conclusion drawn from
historical evidence.
What zero evidence?
Which word are you pretending not to understand?
The Bible isn't an historical document? Nobody in that book
It is a mixture of myth and legend with a modicum of history thrown
in. Full of imopossibilietes and things than never happened.
Just the same as hundreds of similar books from all the other
religions.
Do you really believe that the angel Moroni gave the golden tablets to
Joseph Smith? After all, the Book of Mormon says so, and that is just
as much a historical document.
ever existed? Is that what you're saying? The only difference between
historical evidence about Napoleon and historical evidence about Jesus is
timeframe. Historical evidence is a matter of record. Introduce me to someone
who was witness to the Napoleonic wars if that's not good enough.
Dishonest caricature. Stop pretending you're that stupid when you
obviously aren't.
The last gasp of the cornered theist who lapses into pseudo-solipsism"
you can't prove anything therefore an unevidenced thing you can't
prove is as valid as an evidenced conclusion that you can't prove
either.
Again you mention solipsism. My point is that the secular *leads* to solipsism.
If you are not a solipsist, then you engage in acts of faith.
Liar.
Do they honestly expect this transparent cop out to convince anybody,
or even to satisfy their burden of putting up when they don't shut up?
The only way I will "cop out" here is by agreeing with you.
Nope.
You have just said, "Yes."
Where did he do that? Clue: he didn't, you're lying.
By logical extension he has.
Liar.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.
Apply it to yourself.
There isn't a historical event that could contradict what I'm trying to say.
You cannot prove through historical record that there is no God. I think you're
making a lot of assumptions about me.
More bait'n'switch.
I am making no assumptions. Just reposrting what you do.
You have met far too many salesmen.
Ignorant ***** used as a red herring instead of addressing what
yoiu have been repeatedly told.
I'm not selling anything.
Good thing I never said you were.
Why don't you at least try to read for comprehsion and address what
you are told?
I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will.
No, moron, something happened that you subjectively interpret in terms
of your pre-existing belief.
Until you demonstrate it actually was that and not a figment of your
deluded imagination, you're just digging yourself in deeper.
But then you're a typical god-bothere totally devoid of common sense,
courtesy and the ability to think outside your religion even in the
real world.
God bless you.
What a deliberately, arrogantly, rude thing to saty to somebody you
know is atheist. Do you honestly imagine that rubbing your religion
inour faces is going to achieve anything?
You are the one who is bothered by a blessing. If you really took stock in
atheism, the whole thing would be irrelevant.
If there actually is a hell as you believe then may you be consigned
to it for eternity for your lies, nastiness and stupidity
I don't believe in a lake of fire. It's metaphorical to me.
BTW, I am crossposting out of alt.world and have no idea where any of you are
coming from. rec.org.mensa and alt.bible are up there as well. Now I know where
you come from, and I will try to remember to respect your beliefs in any future
blessing. I apologize.
May you be blessed with peace, knowledge and wisdom.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 04:13:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:44:47 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
God bless you.
What a deliberately, arrogantly, rude thing to saty to somebody you
know is atheist. Do you honestly imagine that rubbing your religion
inour faces is going to achieve anything?
You are the one who is bothered by a blessing. If you really took stock in
atheism, the whole thing would be irrelevant.
I'm not "bothered by a blessing", liar. You were sanctimoniously rude
becaue you knew you were talking to an atheist.
If there actually is a hell as you believe then may you be consigned
to it for eternity for your lies, nastiness and stupidity
I don't believe in a lake of fire. It's metaphorical to me.
Irrelevant. Now I know you don't, I should start talking at you as
though it were real - just as you do with your pretend friend.
BTW, I am crossposting out of alt.world and have no idea where any of you are
coming from. rec.org.mensa and alt.bible are up there as well. Now I know where
you come from, and I will try to remember to respect your beliefs in any future
blessing. I apologize.
May you be blessed with peace, knowledge and wisdom.
May you start using your allegedly god-given brain for a change,
hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 09:32:12 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
You are the one who is bothered by a blessing. If you really took stock in
atheism, the whole thing would be irrelevant.
I'm not "bothered by a blessing", liar. You were sanctimoniously rude
becaue you knew you were talking to an atheist.
I bear no such malice. "God bless you" is a natural thing to me. I messed up,
that's all.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 11:07:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<a7o0s01lkg3qouqddnq568mio8lo8vlve1@4ax.com> wrote:
You have met far too many salesmen. I'm not selling anything. I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will. God bless you.
How about all the people who say they have experienced some god other
than your's?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 12:39:03 AM |
|
|
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<a7o0s01lkg3qouqddnq568mio8lo8vlve1@4ax.com> wrote:
You have met far too many salesmen. I'm not selling anything. I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will. God bless you.
How about all the people who say they have experienced some god other
than your's?
Mortally, I judge them by their fruits. I think that Osama and co. haven't
found the true God because their legacy is blood. I think many Christians have
not found the true God because their legacy is fear. I believe Christ is the
way, but I also have to admit that it sounds like few are listening.
Part of the problem is an evangelism based on fear (hellfire) or coercion
(psychological manipulation). These bring god's of Fear, Domination and Deceit.
You can see them being worshiped by Christians every day. I have a good deal to
say to them, and I am working on a book.
Only God knows if I'll ever finish it.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 05:30:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:39:03 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<26b2s0lr782bmm2sp7cn1r2kp5u055ec7v@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<a7o0s01lkg3qouqddnq568mio8lo8vlve1@4ax.com> wrote:
You have met far too many salesmen. I'm not selling anything. I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will. God bless you.
How about all the people who say they have experienced some god other
than your's?
Mortally, I judge them by their fruits. I think that Osama and co. haven't
found the true God because their legacy is blood. I think many Christians have
not found the true God because their legacy is fear. I believe Christ is the
way, but I also have to admit that it sounds like few are listening.
And you are dodging the question.
Part of the problem is an evangelism based on fear (hellfire) or coercion
(psychological manipulation). These bring god's of Fear, Domination and Deceit.
You can see them being worshiped by Christians every day. I have a good deal to
say to them, and I am working on a book.
I hope you start with evidence that what you say is valid. Do not
expect anyone to take your word for it - prove it.
Only God knows if I'll ever finish it.
Since you have yet to prove any god exists probably no one knows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 09:30:54 AM |
|
|
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:39:03 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<26b2s0lr782bmm2sp7cn1r2kp5u055ec7v@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<a7o0s01lkg3qouqddnq568mio8lo8vlve1@4ax.com> wrote:
You have met far too many salesmen. I'm not selling anything. I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will. God bless you.
How about all the people who say they have experienced some god other
than your's?
Mortally, I judge them by their fruits. I think that Osama and co. haven't
found the true God because their legacy is blood. I think many Christians have
not found the true God because their legacy is fear. I believe Christ is the
way, but I also have to admit that it sounds like few are listening.
And you are dodging the question.
No goofy. You are dodging the answer. This is how *I* discriminate. You can say
it's unreasonable, but I will not allow you to say I haven't answered.
Part of the problem is an evangelism based on fear (hellfire) or coercion
(psychological manipulation). These bring god's of Fear, Domination and Deceit.
You can see them being worshiped by Christians every day. I have a good deal to
say to them, and I am working on a book.
I hope you start with evidence that what you say is valid. Do not
expect anyone to take your word for it - prove it.
Read my lips. I CAN'T. I'm not offended that you keep asking, but I think you
take too much stock in whatever you call "proof" and I have answered the
question. You apparently don't care to find your own proof. Okay, fine by me.
You now get to say "neener neener" if you like. Jeez.
Only God knows if I'll ever finish it.
Since you have yet to prove any god exists probably no one knows.
Same deal, different viewpoints.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 12:39:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:30:54 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<8ba3s0hsqgqh8eqbmenqls68h7fgtbbvsu@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:39:03 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<26b2s0lr782bmm2sp7cn1r2kp5u055ec7v@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:06:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<a7o0s01lkg3qouqddnq568mio8lo8vlve1@4ax.com> wrote:
You have met far too many salesmen. I'm not selling anything. I have
experienced God. Do with that as you will. God bless you.
How about all the people who say they have experienced some god other
than your's?
Mortally, I judge them by their fruits. I think that Osama and co. haven't
found the true God because their legacy is blood. I think many Christians have
not found the true God because their legacy is fear. I believe Christ is the
way, but I also have to admit that it sounds like few are listening.
And you are dodging the question.
No goofy. You are dodging the answer. This is how *I* discriminate. You can say
it's unreasonable, but I will not allow you to say I haven't answered.
You will not allow me?
I say again - you did not answer the question.
Part of the problem is an evangelism based on fear (hellfire) or coercion
(psychological manipulation). These bring god's of Fear, Domination and Deceit.
You can see them being worshiped by Christians every day. I have a good deal to
say to them, and I am working on a book.
I hope you start with evidence that what you say is valid. Do not
expect anyone to take your word for it - prove it.
Read my lips. I CAN'T. I'm not offended that you keep asking, but I think you
take too much stock in whatever you call "proof" and I have answered the
question. You apparently don't care to find your own proof. Okay, fine by me.
I put all my stock in proof. No evidence then no existence,
especially on something as improbable as a god.
You now get to say "neener neener" if you like. Jeez.
Only God knows if I'll ever finish it.
Since you have yet to prove any god exists probably no one knows.
Same deal, different viewpoints.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
17 Dec 2004 01:55:17 AM |
|
|
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
No goofy. You are dodging the answer. This is how *I* discriminate. You can say
it's unreasonable, but I will not allow you to say I haven't answered.
You will not allow me?
That's right. I'll stop reading.
I say again - you did not answer the question.
*****. Goodbye. WTMKF
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
17 Dec 2004 04:14:06 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:55:17 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<9645s0h064iqs6sl4iu8fo6ulqoqj2mkt9@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
No goofy. You are dodging the answer. This is how *I* discriminate. You can say
it's unreasonable, but I will not allow you to say I haven't answered.
You will not allow me?
That's right. I'll stop reading.
Now proclaim victory and run away. You are not the first.
I say again - you did not answer the question.
*****. Goodbye. WTMKF
Watch out for that door.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 08:06:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:30:11 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
Part of the problem is an evangelism based on fear (hellfire) or coercion
(psychological manipulation). These bring god's of Fear, Domination and Deceit.
You can see them being worshiped by Christians every day. I have a good deal to
say to them, and I am working on a book.
I hope you start with evidence that what you say is valid. Do not
expect anyone to take your word for it - prove it.
They are incapable of grasping that their most basic and axiomatic
presumptions don't apply to people outside their religion. In their
imagination they are universally granted and cannot be questioned.
That's one of the reasons for the lies and nastiness they trot out
when they are questioned. In their deluded fantasies it is as real for
us as it is for them, and they amateur-psychologise "reasons" why we
say what we do. All of which are designed to make themselves look good
in their own self-image but denigrate us.
And because they are won't let anybody see it as "merely somebody
else's religious belief" they force a true/false dichotomy where there
isn't one. They won't even let us have the position we do.
But they have neither the common sense nor courtesy to accept that we
don't have the positions, reasons etc they assign to us.
Even though the fact that there is major dispute should tell them
something.
This seems to be a peculiarly US phenomenon. There are fundamentalists
in other countries but they're in a minority and aren't as
unthinkingly brainwashed. Nor are they such binary thinkers.
Before I moved to the US I knew a few fundamentalists in England. But
they weren't the ignorant, in-your-face, evangelist, binary thinkers
we see in the US. Most could think outside the box as well as inside
it, and the very few who couldn't were a joke.
A well-known bad joke a couple of decades ago in the UK was the
born-again Chief of Police in Manchester, one James Anderton who
enforced the law selectively according to his religious beliefs. His
first action on getting the job was to raid city centre news stands
and prosecute them under the obscene publications act for selling the
Sun newspaper. You don't want that here.
And it's the same in most of the rest of the world. The few
can't-think-outside-the-box fundamentalists are a joke, except in
places like Afghanistan or Iran.
The inability to think at different levels seems to be endemic here.
Domestically it's most obvious in religion.
But seen from outside it's also in politics, international affairs
etc. By this I mean that people can't step aside and see things from
the other guy's point of view. So there is only one way to see
something, their way. Anybody who doesn't is wrong. Period.
They can't allow "this is what somebody else believes regardless of
whether they are right or wrong". And being binary thinkers there is
no alternative to their being right or wrong. In their minds this
takes precedence over "this is what they believe", even though that is
more significant.
Only God knows if I'll ever finish it.
Since you have yet to prove any god exists probably no one knows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 08:33:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:06:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<9t33s0t52b1hhds4n9jbdiuer02ujhsvf7@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:30:11 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
Part of the problem is an evangelism based on fear (hellfire) or coercion
(psychological manipulation). These bring god's of Fear, Domination and Deceit.
You can see them being worshiped by Christians every day. I have a good deal to
say to them, and I am working on a book.
I hope you start with evidence that what you say is valid. Do not
expect anyone to take your word for it - prove it.
They are incapable of grasping that their most basic and axiomatic
presumptions don't apply to people outside their religion. In their
imagination they are universally granted and cannot be questioned.
Of course. They are conditioned to accept only their point of view
and consider all others the enemy.
That's one of the reasons for the lies and nastiness they trot out
when they are questioned. In their deluded fantasies it is as real for
us as it is for them, and they amateur-psychologise "reasons" why we
say what we do. All of which are designed to make themselves look good
in their own self-image but denigrate us.
They are unable to even conceive of the position that they may be
wrong. It is outside their framework and is literally
incomprehensible.
And because they are won't let anybody see it as "merely somebody
else's religious belief" they force a true/false dichotomy where there
isn't one. They won't even let us have the position we do.
If you *actually* believe this life is merely a short
prelude to the one to come and if you *actually* believe
that one form of magic will enable you to live it in bliss
and another, slightly different form will cast you into
eternal fire, then anyone pushing the wrong magic is the
worst imaginable kind of criminal, far worse than a mere
murderer.
But they have neither the common sense nor courtesy to accept that we
don't have the positions, reasons etc they assign to us.
Even though the fact that there is major dispute should tell them
something.
This seems to be a peculiarly US phenomenon. There are fundamentalists
in other countries but they're in a minority and aren't as
unthinkingly brainwashed. Nor are they such binary thinkers.
This is the most repressive society in existence outside formal
theocracies.
Before I moved to the US I knew a few fundamentalists in England. But
they weren't the ignorant, in-your-face, evangelist, binary thinkers
we see in the US. Most could think outside the box as well as inside
it, and the very few who couldn't were a joke.
A well-known bad joke a couple of decades ago in the UK was the
born-again Chief of Police in Manchester, one James Anderton who
enforced the law selectively according to his religious beliefs. His
first action on getting the job was to raid city centre news stands
and prosecute them under the obscene publications act for selling the
Sun newspaper. You don't want that here.
And it's the same in most of the rest of the world. The few
can't-think-outside-the-box fundamentalists are a joke, except in
places like Afghanistan or Iran.
The inability to think at different levels seems to be endemic here.
Domestically it's most obvious in religion.
But seen from outside it's also in politics, international affairs
etc. By this I mean that people can't step aside and see things from
the other guy's point of view. So there is only one way to see
something, their way. Anybody who doesn't is wrong. Period.
They can't allow "this is what somebody else believes regardless of
whether they are right or wrong". And being binary thinkers there is
no alternative to their being right or wrong. In their minds this
takes precedence over "this is what they believe", even though that is
more significant.
Only God knows if I'll ever finish it.
Since you have yet to prove any god exists probably no one knows.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 10:30:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:10:17 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1t20s0pmu9s3ge9ikkncrprlfc2m9d7slv@4ax.com> wrote:
What zero evidence? The Bible isn't an historical document? Nobody in that book
ever existed? Is that what you're saying? The only difference between
historical evidence about Napoleon and historical evidence about Jesus is
timeframe. Historical evidence is a matter of record. Introduce me to someone
who was witness to the Napoleonic wars if that's not good enough.
There is nothing anywhere to validate your bible and prove it is
anything more than a book of myths.
There isn't a historical event that could contradict what I'm trying to say.
You cannot prove through historical record that there is no God. I think you're
making a lot of assumptions about me.
It is not necessary to prove a negative. What is there to prove a god
exists?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
14 Dec 2004 08:08:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quntr0t93f7qlkuu3m4cav899hrtvbkct0@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.
Prove any such person ever existed.
It's in a book.
So is Frodo and Dracula, not to mention Zeus and a lot of others.
It's in the first book ever printed.
Which only is another way to indicate about the only people who could
read at the time were those involved with religion. It would be
useless to print a book for those who can't read.
It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.
I know you can't, and all of your other comments are rather useless
aren't they?
Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.
The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?
Since the evidence that Napoleon existed and did certain things are
varied, massive, and easily verified such a discussion would not be in
the same category as a discussion involving werewolves, elves, or
gods.
You have just said, "Yes."
Not at all, for reasons I just gave.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.
Which means absolutely nothing in this context does it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 04:36:44 AM |
|
|
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quntr0t93f7qlkuu3m4cav899hrtvbkct0@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.
Prove any such person ever existed.
It's in a book.
So is Frodo and Dracula, not to mention Zeus and a lot of others.
Prove that George Washington isn't just as fictional as Frodo or Dracula. You
can't. You're the one who holds absolute stock in proof. This is what I mean by
limiting the scope of exisitence to your own lifespan. You can not prove
anything existed outside of what your grandparents have seen if you will not at
least give written accounts the benefit of a doubt.
It's in the first book ever printed.
Which only is another way to indicate about the only people who could
read at the time were those involved with religion. It would be
useless to print a book for those who can't read.
I believe the second was pornographic.
It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.
I know you can't, and all of your other comments are rather useless
aren't they?
Of course not. Other than trust of librarians who have handed down through the
ages books considered to be "fiction" and "non-fiction" we can prove nothing
that non-fiction accounts contain. That's an act of faith, too. You can prove
fictional accounts are fiction because their authors say they are. You can't
prove non-fiction where everything but the book is gone isn't fiction.
Someone in the far future is going to pick up a piece of historical fiction and
think it is a real record. You are saying, at the very least, that the Bible is
a work of historical fiction. Well, guess what? A book that is reprinted,
retranslated, and distributed a million times over and survives the test of
2000 years, and claims to be a witness account, probably has some witness
accounts in it.
To think otherwise is like the jury ignoring DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson
case.
Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.
The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?
Since the evidence that Napoleon existed and did certain things are
varied, massive, and easily verified such a discussion would not be in
the same category as a discussion involving werewolves, elves, or
gods.
Have you *seen* it? Have you *touched* it? It's in a book, right? Why are your
books valid accounts and my books (or rather, arbitrarily one book) mythology?
You are being very selective about what you call evidence. There is plenty of
evidence about the Romans slaughtering people who swore that Christ was the son
of God. That's verifiable. There's verifiable accounts of people who claim they
were with Christ and chained themselves to the top of pillars to deny their
flesh. There is centuries of history about the Catholic church. There is
geography described in the Bible that is still there. That is verifiable. If
you talked to a Bible scholar, I bet he could give you truckloads of "hard"
evidence. But what the heck do you expect after 2000 years? Do you really think
that all that history resulted from a fictional account?
Prove William the Conqueror existed. Prove Charlemagne existed. You don't seem
to understand what historical evidence is. The Bible *is* historical evidence,
unless you have some political or egotistical agenda to arbitrarily deny its
veracity. There are scientists, using carbon dating, who think they may have
found Noah's Ark. Are they nuts too? Lots and lots of people think that book is
based on real events.
You have just said, "Yes."
Not at all, for reasons I just gave.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.
Which means absolutely nothing in this context does it?
I thought it did. Think about it and get back to me.
See my discussion with David Barnes. He is challenging me as a peer and it is
quite interesting.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 11:02:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:36:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<2d30s0tgso37op5bm15b0sul28oocbkp08@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quntr0t93f7qlkuu3m4cav899hrtvbkct0@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.
Prove any such person ever existed.
It's in a book.
So is Frodo and Dracula, not to mention Zeus and a lot of others.
Prove that George Washington isn't just as fictional as Frodo or Dracula.
There are a number of different and independent sources about
Washington and his accomplishments. These vary widely, are by
thousands of different people, and the expected references can be
found wherever they would expect to be found if he actually existed.
You
can't.
Of course I can, and I just did.
You're the one who holds absolute stock in proof. This is what I mean by
limiting the scope of exisitence to your own lifespan. You can not prove
anything existed outside of what your grandparents have seen if you will not at
least give written accounts the benefit of a doubt.
I give written accounts the weight they deserve based upon how much
unrelated evidence there is to support them.
For example, there is no unrelated evidence to support your bible even
where such evidence would be expected.
It's in the first book ever printed.
Which only is another way to indicate about the only people who could
read at the time were those involved with religion. It would be
useless to print a book for those who can't read.
I believe the second was pornographic.
OK. Let's get detailed. Printed books existed for hundreds of years
before Gutenberg. He developed movable type, not book printing.
The earliest dated printed book, known as the Diamond Sutra, was
produced in China in 868 CE, but it is believed that the practice
dates back well before this date. The Japanese and the Chinese
regularly used wood blocks carved in relief to produce Buddhist charms
as early as the fifth century CE.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0228.html
It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.
I know you can't, and all of your other comments are rather useless
aren't they?
Of course not. Other than trust of librarians who have handed down through the
ages books considered to be "fiction" and "non-fiction" we can prove nothing
that non-fiction accounts contain. That's an act of faith, too. You can prove
fictional accounts are fiction because their authors say they are. You can't
prove non-fiction where everything but the book is gone isn't fiction.
Now that brings up something interesting. For a long time Homer was
believed to have written fiction, but recent discoveries have
indicated the possibility that his stories were based upon some actual
people and events. It is not uncommon for what was believed to be fat
to be shown as fiction and vice versa. No matter what the origional
claim.
You seem to think people take the word of others as to what is real
and what is not. This is not true.
Someone in the far future is going to pick up a piece of historical fiction and
think it is a real record.
Not unless there is nome outside unrelated evidence to support it.
And the more evidence that is found the more likely the reality of the
record.
You are saying, at the very least, that the Bible is
a work of historical fiction. Well, guess what? A book that is reprinted,
retranslated, and distributed a million times over and survives the test of
2000 years, and claims to be a witness account, probably has some witness
accounts in it.
None of which does anything to validate a single thing it says.
Validation consists of outside and unrelated support, not the number
of times something is read or reproduced. Or even how old it is.
Which would be more valid - one single piece of paper stating the Sun
rises in the East or one hundred billion pieces produced over a
thousand years that states the sun does not rise at all?
To think otherwise is like the jury ignoring DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson
case.
Which shows that jury never intended to convict him even if he had
admitted it.
Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.
The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?
Since the evidence that Napoleon existed and did certain things are
varied, massive, and easily verified such a discussion would not be in
the same category as a discussion involving werewolves, elves, or
gods.
Have you *seen* it? Have you *touched* it? It's in a book, right? Why are your
books valid accounts and my books (or rather, arbitrarily one book) mythology?
Because your book has no support outside of itself and directly
derived sources. The evidence for Napoleon exists in the historical
records of a number of countries, all of which agree in detail as to
what he did and when.
You are being very selective about what you call evidence. There is plenty of
evidence about the Romans slaughtering people who swore that Christ was the son
of God. That's verifiable.
There is a large amount of evidence they slaughtered a lot of people.
There's verifiable accounts of people who claim they
were with Christ and chained themselves to the top of pillars to deny their
flesh.
Religious fanatics have always made claims and done strange things.
There is centuries of history about the Catholic church.
Which only proves that church is old. It does nothing to validate it.
There is
geography described in the Bible that is still there. That is verifiable.
Great. The fact that Atlanta exists proves every word in Gone With
The Wind is true. The fact that Mars exists proves John Carter and
Deja Thoris actually exist.
If
you talked to a Bible scholar, I bet he could give you truckloads of "hard"
evidence. But what the heck do you expect after 2000 years? Do you really think
that all that history resulted from a fictional account?
Isn't is strange so much else has survived yet there is no information
at all outside one source?
Prove William the Conqueror existed. Prove Charlemagne existed. You don't seem
to understand what historical evidence is.
You don't seem to understand what evidence is.
The Bible *is* historical evidence,
unless you have some political or egotistical agenda to arbitrarily deny its
veracity. There are scientists, using carbon dating, who think they may have
found Noah's Ark. Are they nuts too?
I see a lot of 'think they may haves' in these areas but never
anything that can be verified. Your bible is evidence of nothing
beyond the ability of something to hang around for no good reason for
an obscene amount of time.
Lots and lots of people think that book is
based on real events.
Do you actually think that proves anything at all? Is fact and
reality determined by how many people support it?
If I got enough people to think gravity did not exists would I float?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 12:53:06 AM |
|
|
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
I believe the second was pornographic.
OK. Let's get detailed. Printed books existed for hundreds of years
before Gutenberg. He developed movable type, not book printing.
The earliest dated printed book, known as the Diamond Sutra, was
produced in China in 868 CE, but it is believed that the practice
dates back well before this date. The Japanese and the Chinese
regularly used wood blocks carved in relief to produce Buddhist charms
as early as the fifth century CE.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0228.html
I wasn't specific enough. It was the first book printed on one of the most
significant, and unique, inventions of Western culture. I suspected that there
were other examples of printing presses, but the Gutenberg press is the one
that opened up the floodgates because you could print *anything*, save
pictures, easily.
The "Enlightenment" would not have happened without the Gutenberg press nor, I
suspect, the American War for Independence.
Leif Ericson was probably the first man to discover the new world, and before
that, peoples crossing the Bering Strait, but we talk about Columbus because
that was something that caused a significant change in our world.
My point is that it is significant that the Bible was chosen. Your point
appears to be that it is obtuse and outdated. Sounds reasonable, but I beg to
differ.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 05:19:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:53:06 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<npb2s0hot4ihs3nnopng4iu3c9kfgcvcag@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
I believe the second was pornographic.
OK. Let's get detailed. Printed books existed for hundreds of years
before Gutenberg. He developed movable type, not book printing.
The earliest dated printed book, known as the Diamond Sutra, was
produced in China in 868 CE, but it is believed that the practice
dates back well before this date. The Japanese and the Chinese
regularly used wood blocks carved in relief to produce Buddhist charms
as early as the fifth century CE.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0228.html
I wasn't specific enough. It was the first book printed on one of the most
significant, and unique, inventions of Western culture. I suspected that there
were other examples of printing presses, but the Gutenberg press is the one
that opened up the floodgates because you could print *anything*, save
pictures, easily.
The "Enlightenment" would not have happened without the Gutenberg press nor, I
suspect, the American War for Independence.
And there was no significance connected with the first book other than
religious organizations contained most of the people who could read
and made up most of the existing market for books.
Leif Ericson was probably the first man to discover the new world, and before
that, peoples crossing the Bering Strait, but we talk about Columbus because
that was something that caused a significant change in our world.
No, he happened to be in the right place at the right time and
publicized his 'discovery' when the political and cultural atmosphere
was ready for such exploration and exploitation.
My point is that it is significant that the Bible was chosen. Your point
appears to be that it is obtuse and outdated. Sounds reasonable, but I beg to
differ.
The reasons were covered above. It would have been expensive and
useless to print a book for which there was no market. Then and
today.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
13 Dec 2004 09:31:55 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka wrote:
William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames,
and screamed...
There's huge passages in the Bible that say, "Throw rocks at
people
if they do
this. Throw rocks at people if they do that." Jesus came and said
don't throw
rocks because you're only throwing rocks at yourselves. (at least
that's my
paraphrase)
He also said you have to hate your family in order to follow Him.
I think everyone on the planet would be stoned dead 10 times over
if
we
followed the Bible literally. I once pointed to a verse about
stoning
to death
those who speak ill of their parents and proceeded to call my Dad
a
"ratfucker," quite earnestly, and then dared a literalist in my
study
group to
"go get some rocks." It wasn't fair and it was mean, but I wasn't
in
a very
good mood that day. It proved my point. There's some crazy stuff
in
the Bible
and you have to be discriminating.
No. You must not be discriminating. God forbids it. "Trust in the
Lord
with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding."
I do trust in the Lord. I do not trust implicitly a BOOK written by
MEN. The
Bible to me is a map, a way to find the Lord. That doesn't contradict
the
passage you just quoted. Indeed, passages of the Bible contradict
each other
with disturbing frequency, especially if you contrast the old
covenant with the
new. I enjoy watching literalists do mental backflips trying to line
up
everything in the Bible. Then I become sad, because I realize that
maybe they
have faith in a *book* instead of *God*.
Proverbs 3:5. You can't call the Bible the source of your morals if
you're just going to pick and choose which bits already seem moral
to
you. The Bible also warns against obeying your conscience. "There is
a
way that seems right to a man; that way leads to death" Proverbs
16:25.
We must only do the things we think are wrong.
You're quoting Proverbs. Christ came from Mary and said that the time
for the
Old Covenant is over. That's what a "New" Covenant is.
But Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until the
end of the world.
There are three places faith in God leads to: destroy yourself
because the
flesh is wrong and God wants you to, destroy everyone else because
you are God,
or try to live in communion and love with each other.
And there's only one place atheism leads to: try to live in communion
and love with each other. At least, that's the way it was for me. I was
raised Catholic, but atheism improved my morality.
I'm not saying that I spent my formative years in the Catholic church
hurting people; that was obviously against God's commands. But I was
only kind to people because I wanted to get into Heaven, not because it
seemed like the right thing to do. It was just a rule I had to follow.
The people I was nice to were just accessories to my salvation, not
*people*. I had no friends, and never really learned how to make
friends, because who needs friends when you've got God?
Of course, as time went on, the distinct lack of miracles in my life
made me question whether I really had got God. And hearing people claim
they've seen miracles only made me feel more overlooked by God. I was
forced to learn *not* to let my self-esteem depend on how I thought God
might judge me. Because clearly either God hated me, or He didn't
exist. If those were the only possibilities, which would you prefer?
The possibility that God didn't exist changed my perspective. Since
nobody is born knowing about God, we're all in the same boat, trapped
in a life of ignorance we never asked for. We're all equals, and nobody
has more innate rights than anyone else. We're all in this together, so
why make it worse for anyone? That's where I get my morality from.
Christianity, OTOH, is about us vs them, saved vs unsaved, some people
deserve more respect than others. "All non-Christians go to Hell. Hell
is separation from God's love. If even God won't love a non-Christian,
why should we?"
I choose to live in the
middle ground because faith dictates that I do. I have faith in the
light, and
not the darkness. I am in the middle, God is the beginning and end.
God is the alpha and the omega. God unequivocably determined that
Christ was
God made flesh, so I will not destroy everyone else, because I am not
God. A
human being who was God already happened. It's not me. I will not
destroy
myself. It is my most basic instinct to live, and God gave me that. I
choose
the middle path. I must through the fact of existence. I am.
If you disagree, then you disagree with the Word of God. And I must
ask
myself whom to believe: God, or you?
Of course, if the Bible is not the Word of God, the dilemma goes
away.
Right. Don't worship a book. Use the book to find the truth.
How true can this so-called "truth" be, if it can't be found outside a
book? To say that a statement is true, is to say that it matches
reality. Therefore, the only way to find out whether or not a statement
is true, is to compare it with reality. To say that the Bible is the
*only* possible source of a piece of information, is to admit that the
information doesn't match reality. There's a word for that:
fiction.
I don't pick and choose my Biblical truths alone. I converse with
others and
sometimes take the leap to trust in others. We're back to where this
thread
started. Bible study is good for the soul.
Would you please stop playing "poke the Christian" and treat me as an
equal?
IMHO, you're not having an earnest discussion.
I admit, I get carried away sometimes. I "poke the Christian" the way
the Bible pokes me. On the one hand, I know I should shrug off all the
negativity I find in the Bible; on the other hand, if I don't let it
affect me, and if I don't show that effect to the world, I feel like
Christianity has somehow gotten away with some crime. If I don't show
Christians the negative effects the Bible can have on people, then the
terrorists have won, so to speak. I can't let them think their
teachings have no dark side.
And I think it's dishonest to embrace the good parts and reject the bad
parts, and pretend I'm doing Christianity properly. They say you must
accept God as He is, not as you wish Him to be. It's all or nothing;
believing it halfway is just as damnable as rejecting it all. And I was
incapable of believing it all. Not just because it's unprovable; it
just seemed so *wrong*, so *evil*. The God described in the Bible is
not somebody you'd want to spend eternity with.
I see lots of Christians here on alt.atheism talking about "choosing to
believe" in God. But I think that beliefs are never choices. The
evidence is either convincing, or it isn't. I grew up with no divine
experiences, no contact with an actual God; just the Bible. Because the
God described in the Bible was so repellent, I wasted about 15 years of
my life looking for real tangible evidence to base a belief in God
upon, so my disgust of God wouldn't damn me to Hell. When I finally
faced the fact that there was no such evidence, I realized that belief
in God isn't really belief, but a personal preference. And since I
already knew the God of the Bible disgusted me, I was done.
....but now I'm babbling, and it's late, so that's enough for now.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
14 Dec 2004 06:57:32 AM |
|
|
William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
And there's only one place atheism leads to: try to live in communion
and love with each other. At least, that's the way it was for me. I was
raised Catholic, but atheism improved my morality.
Atheism brought me comfort and succor at one point in my life. In fact, it
saved my life because I'm not sure I would have been able to survive without
the philosophy of existentialism when I was younger.
If atheism helps you find peace, by all means, take that peace. I will say that
God will give you more if you truly follow him. He has given me a kind of peace
and awareness that I never imagined. "Born again" is an apt description. It's
like I started my life over.
However, faith is better than no faith.
As a point of interest, Christianity has not improved my morality. I am still a
human being. God helps me find perspective and accept my flaws. That's why a
lot of Christians can come off hypocritical and smug, because accepting your
flaws can sometimes look like failure to admit you have flaws. It's an easy
trap to fall into.
Ultimately, I have done, and will continue to do, foul things. Christ doesn't
keep you from that.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
14 Dec 2004 07:38:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:57:32 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
And there's only one place atheism leads to: try to live in communion
and love with each other. At least, that's the way it was for me. I was
raised Catholic, but atheism improved my morality.
Atheism brought me comfort and succor at one point in my life. In fact, it
saved my life because I'm not sure I would have been able to survive without
the philosophy of existentialism when I was younger.
It doesn't even pretend to do that. It's not the equivalent/opposite
of theist that lying theists pretend.
If atheism helps you find peace, by all means, take that peace. I will say that
God will give you more if you truly follow him. He has given me a kind of peace
and awareness that I never imagined. "Born again" is an apt description. It's
like I started my life over.
However, faith is better than no faith.
In the dreams of the god-addict.
As a point of interest, Christianity has not improved my morality. I am still a
We know.
human being. God helps me find perspective and accept my flaws. That's why a
No. At most the BELIEF does that. But in your case it hasn't made you
any more honest.
lot of Christians can come off hypocritical and smug, because accepting your
flaws can sometimes look like failure to admit you have flaws. It's an easy
trap to fall into.
Yes, you do come off as hypocritical and smug.
Ultimately, I have done, and will continue to do, foul things. Christ doesn't
keep you from that.
Figments of your deluded imagination don't do that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 04:52:19 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
Yes, you do come off as hypocritical and smug.
Hypocrisy is the first pillar of situational ethics. I practice those ethics on
a daily basis and I know damned well that anyone beyond the age of 20 is a
hypocrite in some fashion, whether they realize it or not. Hypocrisy is a way
of dealing with the conflict of what is, and our ideology. IMHO, anyone who
thinks differently is lying to himself.
I am quite smug because I am talking about something as real to me as the
keyboard on which I am typing this. I would come off equally as smug if you
called me a liar about my faith that there is a keyboard beneath my fingers.
All I say is that I have experienced God. You believe I am a liar. Pretty much
ends the discussion.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 04:46:21 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
Atheism brought me comfort and succor at one point in my life. In fact, it
saved my life because I'm not sure I would have been able to survive without
the philosophy of existentialism when I was younger.
It doesn't even pretend to do that. It's not the equivalent/opposite
of theist that lying theists pretend.
I agree, I *was* an atheist. Atheism is faith just like any other faith. Can
you read? Any faith is better than no faith. In fact, there are those who have
faith, and those who deny they have faith. No one lives without faith, except
for the critically insane. We all have faith in something.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 09:23:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:46:21 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
Atheism brought me comfort and succor at one point in my life. In fact, it
saved my life because I'm not sure I would have been able to survive without
the philosophy of existentialism when I was younger.
It doesn't even pretend to do that. It's not the equivalent/opposite
of theist that lying theists pretend.
I agree, I *was* an atheist. Atheism is faith just like any other faith. Can
you read? Any faith is better than no faith. In fact, there are those who have
faith, and those who deny they have faith. No one lives without faith, except
for the critically insane. We all have faith in something.
By what definition does being atheist equal 'faith'?
An atheist doesn't need FAITH to be an atheist anymore than YOU need
faith when you say you don't believe in pink polka-dotted unicorns
grazing on stones on Mars....
I could SAY these beings exist.
I could write a book about them.
I could say that they are VERY shy and if you look at Mars with a
telescope they hide.
but you STILL wouldn't have to rely on FAITH that they don't exist.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 10:08:23 AM |
|
|
RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
An atheist doesn't need FAITH to be an atheist anymore than YOU need
faith when you say you don't believe in pink polka-dotted unicorns
grazing on stones on Mars....
Belief and faith are different things, and that is very hard to describe. All I
can say is you think about belief, you don't think about faith. If all you know
is thinking, you will not notice the faith in your life.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
16 Dec 2004 09:23:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:08:23 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
An atheist doesn't need FAITH to be an atheist anymore than YOU need
faith when you say you don't believe in pink polka-dotted unicorns
grazing on stones on Mars....
Belief and faith are different things, and that is very hard to describe. All I
can say is you think about belief, you don't think about faith. If all you know
is thinking, you will not notice the faith in your life.
I have faith in many things. Faith in the goodness of people. Faith
that the sun will rise. Faith that this too shall pass. Faith that
what makes a person strong isn't what they experience, but how they
choose to REACT to that experience.
I have more faith that the woodpeckers will come to my birdfeeders
every morning than I do that anyone / anything can be KILLED and rise
three days later or that this being will come back to earth to destroy
99% of life on it because they didn't follow an ancient book. (don't
forget, your God will kill every animal too.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
17 Dec 2004 02:00:43 AM |
|
|
RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:08:23 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
An atheist doesn't need FAITH to be an atheist anymore than YOU need
faith when you say you don't believe in pink polka-dotted unicorns
grazing on stones on Mars....
Belief and faith are different things, and that is very hard to describe. All I
can say is you think about belief, you don't think about faith. If all you know
is thinking, you will not notice the faith in your life.
I have faith in many things. Faith in the goodness of people. Faith
that the sun will rise. Faith that this too shall pass. Faith that
what makes a person strong isn't what they experience, but how they
choose to REACT to that experience.
Me too, actually, most of those things I believe because I have thought about
them long and hard. Faith requires no thought. There are too many in this
thread that say that faith is irrelevant. That it is unneccessary. Faith is
natural, and those who don't have an anchor point of faith in something are,
IMHO, adrift.
I have more faith that the woodpeckers will come to my birdfeeders
every morning than I do that anyone / anything can be KILLED and rise
three days later or that this being will come back to earth to destroy
99% of life on it because they didn't follow an ancient book. (don't
forget, your God will kill every animal too.
We will kill ourselves, and when the time comes, it will be a GOOD thing
because we will have come far enough to understand that death is an illusion.
It's cryptic, but that's the best way I can describe it.
We must not rush it like Hitler or Jim Jones, we will evolve into it.
This is my considered opinion.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians? |
15 Dec 2004 09:56:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:46:21 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
Atheism brought me comfort and succor at one point in my life. In fact, it
saved my life because I'm not sure I would have been able to survive without
the philosophy of existentialism when I was younger.
It doesn't even pretend to do that. It's not the equivalent/opposite
of theist that lying theists pretend.
I agree, I *was* an atheist. Atheism is faith just like any other faith. Can
you read? Any faith is better than no faith. In fact, there are those who have
faith, and those who deny they have faith. No one lives without faith, except
for the critically insane. We all have faith in something.
If you imagine that atheism is faith then you were never atheist -
because an ex-atheist would know that it isn't.
It's not rocket science.
An atheist is merely a person who isn't theist.
The theistic presumptions that cause you to misunderstand and
misreprestent atheists don't even apply in the real world outside your
religion.
Including your presumption that your deity is real, universally
granted etc.
One would expect an ex-atheist to understand this, because "God" is
merely somebody else's religion's deity-BELIE | | | | | |
