Being Harrased by Christians: The result of religious child abuse?

[Dan_77]

That is the sole reason I do not participate in organized religion. Raising a child in religion is not abuse but teaching a child to hate is. Those children need to know the fundamental basis of being a christian is love and we will all be judged in the end.

While I agree, I'm just scratching my head at how you reconcile this belief with this position?

[SoylentGreen]

Try telling that to the victims of religious genocide.

Well true, but I do not advocate sinking to the level of the religious.
We should pity here hostility and the barbaric beliefs that condone such actions, Better to enlighten them with reason than allow them to wallow in paganism.

[freefallife]

I do not agree with being an athiest, to me it seems arrogant to think there is no higher power on earth other than yourself.

Careful how you define atheists, Rooster. We are not a group of arrogant egoists. Besides, it could be argued that THEISTS are the arrogant ones in that they hold a belief that the universe in its infinite entirety was created solely for them. At any rate, atheism is simply a position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods, or rejects theism. a simpler way to look at it is that atheism is the absence of belief in deities. There are multiple reasons that one might hold an atheistic view, but arrogance is not one of them.

1. There are people who believe differently than you and that is ok.

Agree.

2. Christians should be tolerant, forgiving and loving.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, for the better part of Christian history, that's exactly what they WERE NOT.

[Rooster]

Quote byfreefallife: Careful how you define atheists, Rooster. We are not a group of arrogant egoists. Besides, it could be argued that THEISTS are the arrogant ones in that they hold a belief that the universe in its infinite entirety was created solely for them. At any rate, atheism is simply a position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods, or rejects theism. a simpler way to look at it is that atheism is the absence of belief in deities. There are multiple reasons that one might hold an atheistic view, but arrogance is not one of them.

Very different defintion of athiesm than I know but interesting all the same. I never thought the universe was created solely for "me" or for believers only. Quite interesting.

It is too bad that some Christians dont practice what they preach.

[ItsDarts]

I do not agree with being an athiest, to me it seems arrogant to think there is no higher power on earth other than yourself.

If we're only talking about the planet earth, why is this hard to believe? Have you seen anything other than humans with higher powers? As for the rest of the universe, which is quite big, I find it arrogant that theists can claim there is an invisable friends who transcends the universe and its their particular friend who is the true friend, yet you reject everyone elses invisable friends.

Theism, by definition, is belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world/universe.

So it follows that A-theism is the LACK of Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially a lack of belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world/universe.

Yes, there are those who will make the positive claim "there are no gods" and we call this Expicit or Postive atheism. This position is arguably harder to defend but it has been done with some success. A google search on Positive Athiesm will net some hard to follow arguments for positive atheism.

Most (I dare say) on this board are of the Implicit or Weak atheism who merely lack your belief. Just like you lack belief in the existence of Zues ( I assume) and all other gods but your own, we lack belief in one more god than you.

[freefallife]

Very different defintion of athiesm than I know but interesting all the same. I never thought the universe was created solely for "me" or for believers only. Quite interesting.

It may not be much of a belief today, as scientific discoveries have destroyed this view, yet in its early years Christianity was VERY homocentric. The religious support of Earth as the CENTER of the universe supports my claim. The first blow to the homocentricity of classical religion came with the realisation that the Universe did NOT revolve around the Earth. After a while this ungodly belief was eventually accepted as the evidence was so far in its favour, and theologians could cede the point without changing much of their theology. In Genesis, the very STARS are created for OUR benefit...to mark the passage of seasons, days and years. Our own universe to use as a calendar. According to the bible, the Earth, along with every living inhabitant of it, was created just for us. Man is to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."(Gen 1:26) If we look at the situation of life on Earth, however, we can easily see that the Earth is more fine tuned to ants, insects and bacteria. We are most definitely NOT the rulers of this planet. How many millions of people have died from bacterial infection, I wonder?? Could human life be possible without bacteria?? A resounding NO. At any rate, you can see how easy it is to conclude that god was invented from our own human ego to be the center of the universe. If Christianity is true, mankind are not such pitiful worms as they seem to be; they are of interest to the Creator of the universe, who takes the trouble to be pleased with them when they behave well and displeased when they behave badly. This is a great compliment. It is an even pleasanter compliment if He awards to the good among us everlasting happiness in heaven. Am I still to think that ATHEISTS are egocentric??

[Dan_77]

If we look at the situation of life on Earth, however, we can easily see that the Earth is more fine tuned to ants, insects and bacteria. We are most definitely NOT the rulers of this planet. How many millions of people have died from bacterial infection, I wonder?? Could human life be possible without bacteria?? A resounding NO.

Resounding in your opinion maybe. What the Earth is "suited for" or who are the "rulers" is a completely subjective question.

How many trillions of bacteria have been killed by humans? I would say overall we kill more of them then they kill of us.

[ItsDarts]

Resounding in your opinion maybe. What the Earth is "suited for" or who are the "rulers" is a completely subjective question.

How many trillions of bacteria have been killed by humans? I would say overall we kill more of them then they kill of us.

I would argue that there is nothing "tuned" as that implies something or someone did it. Physics is all we need to explain it. Physics dictates that it happens as a process, in otherwords, our happenstance location around this particular star allows for the physics for life and everything else on the planet to "work". There are 4 fundimental forces in the "known universe" and they work together to form what we know as the "known universe. Gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces all play a role in how the various parts of the universe form and interact upon matter and other energy. It could be argued that someone or something had to create these forces, but I would argue back, what created that someone or something. The typical answer would be "it was always there" and I would again argue back, that there is nothing to suggest that these forces weren't already "just always there". Our universe exists out of the natural processes of physics, nothing more is needed to explain it. Here is a link to one possible explanation. Its a short read that isn't too technical. The only evidence for this theory is math, but at least it is evidence, which is more than any theological explanation can give.

[freefallife]

Resounding in your opinion maybe. What the Earth is "suited for" or who are the "rulers" is a completely subjective question.

I said that human life would not be possible without bacteria. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. The bacteria in your digestive system serves by helping you digest and absorb your food, generate nutrients, and most importantly, keeps your immune system functioning properly. The growth of good bacteria helps to crowd out disease-causing bacteria and make conditions unfavorable for their growth.They also manufacture B vitamins and amino acids. Two examples of these beneficial bacteria in healthy people are acidophilus and bifidobacterium. So, is it just my opinion...hardly. Can we live witout them?? Still resounding no.

As far as what the Earth is more suited for, its quite easy to see that it is far better suited for bacteria. Why?? Because they live EVERYWHERE. In the coldest regions of the arctic to deep sea trenches...without protective clothing or deep sea vehicles.

Stop thinking that just because humans are the most intelligent form of life on this planet that they rule over it. It is simply not true, and its obviously not subjective.

How many trillions of bacteria have been killed by humans? I would say overall we kill more of them then they kill of us.

Thats probably true. We do kill more of them than they kill us. And it makes absolutely NO difference. We still depend on them for our very survival, and many of them can kill us quite easy. We will NEVER be the dominant form of life on this planet. Get used to it. In a single spoonfull of soil there are more than 10 trillion bacteria. That's more in a few ounces than the TOTAL number of humans to EVER walk the earth. In terms of numbers and total mass alone, bacteria are the dominant form of life on this planet. It's that simple. You can't really be that homocentric, are you??

[Dan_77]

I said that human life would not be possible without bacteria. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. The bacteria in your digestive system serves by helping you digest and absorb your food, generate nutrients, and most importantly, keeps your immune system functioning properly. The growth of good bacteria helps to crowd out disease-causing bacteria and make conditions unfavorable for their growth.They also manufacture B vitamins and amino acids. Two examples of these beneficial bacteria in healthy people are acidophilus and bifidobacterium. So, is it just my opinion...hardly. Can we live witout them?? Still resounding no.

Ok, but do they rule the Earth? It's a silly question of course, and your answer, no matter what you say, will be purely your opinion.

As far as what the Earth is more suited for, its quite easy to see that it is far better suited for bacteria. Why?? Because they live EVERYWHERE. In the coldest regions of the arctic to deep sea trenches...without protective clothing or deep sea vehicles.

And how does that mean the Earth is better suited to bacteria? Sheer numbers? What that means is that bacteria are perhaps better suited to Earth, not the other way around.

Stop thinking that just because humans are the most intelligent form of life on this planet that they rule over it. It is simply not true, and its obviously not subjective.

You mean objective. Just like it's not objective that bacteria are "best suited" to the Earth.

Thats probably true. We do kill more of them than they kill us. And it makes absolutely NO difference. We still depend on them for our very survival, and many of them can kill us quite easy. We will NEVER be the dominant form of life on this planet. Get used to it. In a single spoonfull of soil there are more than 10 trillion bacteria. That's more in a few ounces than the TOTAL number of humans to EVER walk the earth. In terms of numbers and total mass alone, bacteria are the dominant form of life on this planet. It's that simple. You can't really be that homocentric, are you??

"Dominant" is a word of subjectivity and is purely your opinion, much like your entire argument. Let me know when you have something objective to debate and I'll be back.

[freefallife]

Ok, but do they rule the Earth? It's a silly question of course, and your answer, no matter what you say, will be purely your opinion.

So, what, you're the king of bacteria now? I never said they "rule" the Earth. What I said was that WE don't rule over every living thing as the bible states. The biblical homocentric idea is what I'm attacking. It is not a matter of opinion that we don't rule over every living thing on Earth. In my example I use bacteria, but the same can be said about all microbiological organisms. We can't fight viruses and we depend on bacteria for life on this planet. Therefore, we RULE over neither.

And how does that mean the Earth is better suited to bacteria? Sheer numbers? What that means is that bacteria are perhaps better suited to Earth, not the other way around.

Not if you look at it from the genesis point of veiw where, supposedly, the Earth was created specificly for humans. If that were the case, then there should be no inhospitable areas of the planet for us to reside unassited. That fact is true for bacteria. They can thrive in areas where nothing else can. It should be the other way around if the planet was made for US.

You mean objective. Just like it's not objective that bacteria are "best suited" to the Earth.

No, I meant exactly what I said. WE do not rule over every living thing on this planet. Simple fact and FACTS are always objective.

"Dominant" is a word of subjectivity and is purely your opinion, much like your entire argument. Let me know when you have something objective to debate and I'll be back.

It is not my opinion that without bacteria, life on this planet would be impossible....it's a FACT. It is not my opinion that humans depend on bacteria for healthy life...it's a FACT. It is not my opnion that we do not rule over microbiological life...it's a FACT. We can't even cure the common cold, so how can it be said that we "rule" over all living things on Earth? The FACT is...we don't. As I said...FACTS are always objective. My argument is nothing but objective fact. Maybe when you DO come back, you won't be so confused.

[Dan_77]

So, what, you're the king of bacteria now? I never said they "rule" the Earth. What I said was that WE don't rule over every living thing as the bible states. The biblical homocentric idea is what I'm attacking. It is not a matter of opinion that we don't rule over every living thing on Earth. In my example I use bacteria, but the same can be said about all microbiological organisms. We can't fight viruses and we depend on bacteria for life on this planet. Therefore, we RULE over neither.

How is it not a matter of opinion?

Not if you look at it from the genesis point of veiw where, supposedly, the Earth was created specificly for humans.

I don't, but I suppose some people do.

If that were the case, then there should be no inhospitable areas of the planet for us to reside unassited.

Says who? And what is "unassisted"? Human beings developed their intelligence as an evolutionary means of survival. Therefore, if you are saying that fish can live underwater "unassisted" because of their gills, than anywhere humans can live with the assistance of our technology, developed from our evolutionary skill of intelligence, is living unassisted.

Expecting "unassisted" humans to survive naked and shelter-less is like expecting "unassisted" Arctic wolves to survive with their fur shaved off.

Ironic that in most cases, scientific people are trying to convince us, in support of evolution, that our abilities are merely a product of our evolution, but here, you being a scientific person are trying to say those abilities are not counted when it comes to determining what humans can adapt to.

That fact is true for bacteria. They can thrive in areas where nothing else can. It should be the other way around if the planet was made for US.

Why?

No, I meant exactly what I said. WE do not rule over every living thing on this planet. Simple fact and FACTS are always objective.

The problem is that "rule over" is a subjective term. Farmers eat food and therefore are dependent on it. However, they also own animals and produce growing on their land. Do they not "rule over" the cows on their farm? They can't live without food, but they control almost every aspect of the livestock's destiny.

It is not my opinion that without bacteria, life on this planet would be impossible....it's a FACT. It is not my opinion that humans depend on bacteria for healthy life...it's a FACT. It is not my opnion that we do not rule over microbiological life...it's a FACT. We can't even cure the common cold, so how can it be said that we "rule" over all living things on Earth? The FACT is...we don't. As I said...FACTS are always objective. My argument is nothing but objective fact. Maybe when you DO come back, you won't be so confused.

But you are missing a step. All of your facts are missing the logical connection between those facts and your conclusion.

If I accept all of those facts as true, I still need to determine that those facts equate to the properties needed to "rule over" something before I can say whether or not X "rules over" Y.

Dictionary.com has 24 definitions for "rule". Not one of them mentions anything about "to not be dependent on" as a necessary element of the word.