Playboypenguin
Moderator
I would rather see some sort of alternative healthcare for those that cannot afford it and see our world standing restored without the AWB.
pro-gun liberalism
- Thread starter higgy1911
- Start date
- Status
Nah, all I've read is Narnia.
Although I do see the Christian influences in the story but I also recognize many eastern and pagan influences as well. Perhaps Narnia was his least "christian" writing because I'm finding a wide variety of religious ideas represented. Although The Horse and His Boy seemed a little anti...um....anti-persian, if you will? ^_^
Dawkins makes the claim that there is no supernatural forces with the same tenacity that the religious make their claims.
Plus, he's a dick. You can disagree with people's beliefs without being a complete douchebag about it.
If anything it makes others cling to their beliefs even harder. It's counter-productive.
Nonsense. All you or science can do is speculate about origins. You are like the atheist I talked to once that said I believed in fairy tales and he believed in facts that hadn't been discover yet.
Like most devout atheists, your foundation is built on the "anything is possible except God" theory.
You miscued twice on the same shot. I said the opposite, that the government was doing the will of the people, it does not drift down from above. And I didn't insist that government control marriage. Although, I may adopt that view if judicial activists continue to override the will of the people.
I don't know about most. While there are certainly many strong atheists out there (the ones that say "there is no god") I would imagine that most are in fact weak atheist/agnostic (the ones that say "could be but there's no proof either way so I don't really give a frak). I could be wrong though.
I do find strong atheists just as annoying in their beliefs as the devout religious types.
I think you are right. But those people are probably using the term because they see it more as an anti-establishment phrase, not necessarily true atheists. The definition of atheism says there is 0% chance of a God. In my mind that requires at least as much faith as theism.
The definition of atheism includes all forms of atheism, including agnosticism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
That the more devout atheists have taken the term to mean their own claim of no god does not change the fact that many agnostics consider themselves atheists on the non-theist form.
I wouldn't say it requires at least as much faith as theism but I do believe it requires some faith and that's why I wholly reject it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
That the more devout atheists have taken the term to mean their own claim of no god does not change the fact that many agnostics consider themselves atheists on the non-theist form.
I wouldn't say it requires at least as much faith as theism but I do believe it requires some faith and that's why I wholly reject it.
Beretta686
New member
lol. And you can PROVE that Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, walked on water, turned water into wine, etc, etc, etc?
You consistently demonstrate your ignorance of science and atheism. Though science is harder to understand than "God did it", I assure you with a little research and an open mind, you'd be able to grasp the basics.
Atheism for me is a scientific mindset, where you match your beliefs to the evidence, rather than trying to make the evidence match your beliefs (i.e.-religion).
Thus ultimately all beliefs are merely temporary positions until something better comes along (i.e.-God takes over all TV stations at once and tell us send $$$ to Pat Robertson, I'm going to church). Thus if you could prove your God to me, I'd love to believe, since the idea of an after-life sounds great and where God gets even with bad people (and I'm sure you'll get bonus points for converting me).
Please answer me this:
The Bible is full of stories of miracles and Jesus healing people. And if you’re a Christian I'm sure you believe in the healing power of Christ and that he’s out there healing the sick from cancers and such.
But why doesn't he heal amputees? I served with some good Christians who while fighting God's war against the heathen Muslims had their limbs lost due to combat. Why aren't we asking God to grow them a new limb? He may not grant it, but why don't we try? If Jesus made the blind see, how hard can it be? I can't think of anyone more deserving than a true believing Christian soldier. Certainly much more deserving than healing some house-wife’s cancer.
Yes, and Dawkins also readily admits his willingness to change his mind IF the evidence arises. The guy wants proof. Read his books rather before you make assumptions.
Last edited:
As a conservative Dem (oxymoron I know), I think it is important to look to the one aspect of our government that truly makes sense. That is the ability for checks and balances to stay in place. Doesn't always happen but tends to keep the moderates in business as they should be. Neither the right, nor left, have any of our rights and opinions in mind, only their political agenda and to H@## with anyone who disagrees. When voting for Prez, and/or your States' reps, keep in mind the power structure there and vote to keep those checks in place. If you don't and allow for complete control by one party or the other then I have a hard time seeing us progress during that period. Elkman
okay, not to get way off topic, but I just can't buy into the whole atheism thing. If one does not allow for the possibility of human existence being at least somewhat spiritual, but instead soley scientific, then there can be no ethics or morality.
I don't necessarily believe that the line in the Decleration about being endowed with rights by the creator is 100% accurate.
But if there is no God, or if there is nothing supernatural, then there can be no morality. There wouldn't be anything to base it on.
Concepts like honor, dignity, rights, would have no place. And a world without rights, or without honor(which is a wholly spiritual concept, be it based on religion or a more personal code). Science allows that these concepts would merely be whims. I believe they are more.
As for choosing the assault weapons ban for the sake of universal healthcare, I can respect that, but I feel just the opposite.
I like that my hi-cap guns are coming with hi-cap magazines. I liked stocking up on AR mags.
And in the end, the guns are always the final issue for me. Because no other right is anywhere near as important. Why? because with weapons, we can protect all our other rights. Or at least better than we could without.
I don't necessarily believe that the line in the Decleration about being endowed with rights by the creator is 100% accurate.
But if there is no God, or if there is nothing supernatural, then there can be no morality. There wouldn't be anything to base it on.
Concepts like honor, dignity, rights, would have no place. And a world without rights, or without honor(which is a wholly spiritual concept, be it based on religion or a more personal code). Science allows that these concepts would merely be whims. I believe they are more.
As for choosing the assault weapons ban for the sake of universal healthcare, I can respect that, but I feel just the opposite.
I like that my hi-cap guns are coming with hi-cap magazines. I liked stocking up on AR mags.
And in the end, the guns are always the final issue for me. Because no other right is anywhere near as important. Why? because with weapons, we can protect all our other rights. Or at least better than we could without.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That could not be further from the truth. Why does someone have to use religion to justify dignity and humanity? Why do people have to have a threat of eternal punishment to make someone behave in a caring and thoughtful manner?
If you really think about it, religion does not make people good at all...if you are only being good out of fear of punishment are you truely a good person?
Sure there is. Morality exists as a social construct. We create it and the concepts of "good" and "evil" by being intelligent, self-aware beings. Before there was language and our species was just beginning to acquire sapience there wouldn't have been any morality or ethics. It was pure nature, mere instinct that guided our behavior.
It was civilization, society and culture that allowed for the existence of morality. Without the supernatural there can still be morality and ethics, they're simply dependent on us to define them and not some absolute, universal concepts.
JuanCarlos
New member
Yes, but at least from where I sit it often seems that those most likely to stock up on weapons are the ones most likely to either sit by idly while our other rights are eroded, or the ones actively supporting that erosion. While you might sleep better at night thinking your gun collection keeps your other rights safe, I instead fear that if the time ever comes that I actually need to use mine for this purpose it's probably far too late, and far too many of the citizens who own the more capable firearms could well be on the wrong side.
Beretta686
New member
Wow I missed that one. That's one of oldest and lamest excuses for God around and it does little more than offer a reason for God rather than proof.
The existence of ethics and cooperative behavior in the animal kingdom shows how these things were favored by natural selection, rather than given to us by some sky-god.
Besides I doubt anyone who actually read the Bible from a objective, critical view-point would want a Biblical morality, since the Bible goes to great length discussing how to treat your slaves, "Lebensraum" for chosen people (sound familiar?), genocide for cities that worship other god’s, God’s petty bets with his rivals (poor Isaac, almost had to take one for the team….), brutal punishments for minor offenses, and on and on and on....
Personally I find the Christian God of the Old Testament one of worst characters in all fiction. I’d rather worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly Goodness.
No, that isn't what it says. That's why there are separate words. A disbelief means that you don't believe it. If you believe here's a possibility of a God then the right word is agnostic. There's no shame in using the right word. Like I said, the reason is probably counter culturish.
No, I never even said what I believe, it's beside the point. If you don't understand the point, so be it.
There's no such thing as the scientific mindset when it comes to that which science cannot address. Many scientists are
of varying religious disciples and science can only study the observable. The rest is speculation.
I think the short answer is that number one, perfection won't happen here and that's what you are asking. Number two, you are assuming a soldier is more worthy than a house wife. Only God can decide that. That housewife may have been sexually abused as a child yet still cares for people enough to be devoted to a husband, the elderly etc. Bottom line, it ain't our place to weigh souls.
If you limit your definition of "the Bible" to the OT you might have a point, although even Orthodox Jews don't live under the Law these days. You haven't even read the NT so I don't know what makes you spout off so much about it.
wtf, yes it does
Right there. The other definition is the one you're referring to but words don't carry all of their definitions at all times. That disbelief does not mean that one doesn't believe in the possibility of a deity, just the deity itself.
There are separate words because the english language is redundant and a lot of times there are multiple words for the same thing. The point is that agnosticism is a kind of atheism. Y'know, the whole "all squares are rectangles" thing? All agnostics are atheists, not all atheists are agnostics.
The reason is not counter-culturish any more so than people simply looking at the world with what they believe is logical and reason. I am an agnostic which makes me a kind of atheist. Simple as that. It's like saying "I'm a baptist, a kind of christian."
I don't want to get too theological here but that point is taught in the NT. If you are motivated by fear, greed, self importance, etc, it really isn't a good deed. God knows your true motivation. So I don't agree that fear is what motivates most religious folks. Except maybe those under Muslim rule.
That makes no sense. The definition doesn't limit the word or define in any way who or what God is.
You are making that up. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe he exists, period. If you hold out any possibility, you are agnostic. The words are not interchangable by any definition I've ever seen.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
But the whole religion thing is based on the principle of "be goo sheep or be punished for eternity." You can't really separate that part out unless you are one of those people that pick and choose what parts they want to believe.
Nor did I say it did.
The definition states that atheism is disbelief in the existence of a deity. Not disbelief in the possibility of a deity. Breaking it down further, I am an atheist because I don't believe in a deity. I am an agnostic/weak atheist because I also don't believe that the existence of a deity can be disproven.
Making it up? Dude, you don't get to decide what the word means.
Again, an agnostic is a kind of atheist. If you want to keep playing semantics over such a petty issue, go for it, but I will still call myself an atheist because I understand the full scope of the word. I don't believe in any deity but I also don't claim they don't exist. The possibility? Sure...but no more than I believe in the possibility that we're all living in the Matrix and waiting for Keanu Reeves to save us or the possibility that you're all just a figment of my imagination or the possibility that the world is resting on the back of a turtle.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I won't play word games at all. I am an atheist pure and simple. I do not in anyway believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god of any form or fashion.
I get it honest though...my dad and grandfather where both atheists also. My grandfather did not start out that way but came to believe no god would allow the things he saw in his military career and that he would rather believe there is no god than to believe there is one so un-caring and petty.
I think people fall into a real trap when they start to tie god and guns together. You do not have to believe in god to be a gun owner and vice versa but the far right loves to keep those two issues closely intertwined for some odd reason.
I get it honest though...my dad and grandfather where both atheists also. My grandfather did not start out that way but came to believe no god would allow the things he saw in his military career and that he would rather believe there is no god than to believe there is one so un-caring and petty.
I think people fall into a real trap when they start to tie god and guns together. You do not have to believe in god to be a gun owner and vice versa but the far right loves to keep those two issues closely intertwined for some odd reason.
- Status