Raised Christian

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Halofan48 Look, i didn't "concede" that you'd become a christian. I said it was possible. Also, in some countries, i really don't think you can. In fact, isn't there a country that has people shot on site if preaching or wearing religious symbols that aren't it's religion? I doubt you'll know much about Christianity there PF...

That's pretty ignorant. People have been Christians and died willing for being so in some of the most repressive regimes in history. Getting shot isn't as deterrent as being hung naked from a cross or being burnt at the stake in the public square or being hung naked from a cross and being burnt on it to light someone's garden, for instance. The fact that the government is so repressive of Christians actually serves to spread the belief amongst those who resent the government's oppression and empathize with the Christians. Read up on some history, Halo.

[Morality Games]

And the most abhorrent feature of any morality rears its ugly head -- the victim complex!

Unfortunately, thanks to biblical exaltion of martyrdom, Christians have a particularily bad case.

[Technosoul]

Here is a little utube help, it demonstrates the logic behind science.

YouTube - Re: Blind Faith

comments welcome.

[DTB123]

Quote by: HelioPrime Religion is based of personal experience and interpretation. Science is fact and knowledge. .

One of the first problems with this is that it is patently false. While religion is based in part, on experience and interpretation; these two things within Christianity, are based upon facts.

It is a shallow scientific understanding that tries to claim as fact, something that even many evolutionists concede is "the THEORY of evolution."

[DTB123]

Quote by: Morality Games And the most abhorrent feature of any morality rears its ugly head -- the victim complex! Unfortunately, thanks to biblical exaltion of martyrdom, Christians have a particularily bad case.

Most of the time what you would call "victim complex" it would in fact be something else.

[DTB123]

Quote by: Tycoon Actually no. The percentage of persons claiming to be atheist has been steadily increasing.

Oh yes; and I'll bet you have "proof" for that one, eh?

[DTB123]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Atheism has nothing to do with loyalty or allegiance to a cause. It's the non-belief in deities. What atheists do is irrelevant. Christianity, by it's definition, is a religion, according to your definition of religion because loyalty is in the definition of Christianity. You've also must have spent quite some time finding the perfect definition online to try to fit atheism in there.. even so, you still failed.

Actually; it only took me 10-15 seconds to make that post. Atheism, in it's most obvious sense, is indeed devotion to a cause, and a set of values inherent in the non-belief of deities. The intricate system of "apologetics" developed by atheists to supposedly debunk Christians is all the proof anyone needs to decide if atheism is indeed a world religion, under the guise of "unbelief." They believe in "unbelief!!"

[Morality Games]

Quote by: DTB123 Most of the time what you would call "victim complex" it would in fact be something else.

Explain.

Victim complexes are psychological conditions where people on basis of bias rather than objective analysis interpret information in a way that allows them to perceive themelves as the wronged good person and the others as evil and bad.

Actually; it only took me 10-15 seconds to make that post. Atheism, in it's most obvious sense, is indeed devotion to a cause, and a set of values inherent in the non-belief of deities. The intricate system of "apologetics" developed by atheists to supposedly debunk Christians is all the proof anyone needs to decide if atheism is indeed a world religion, under the guise of "unbelief." They believe in "unbelief!!

No, for god's sake, stop acting like a four-year old, insisting that the right way to bake a cake is with mud instead of flour. Having already explained why you are wrong, I have no choice but to sit back and relax until you somehow overthrow the established order of contemporary language.

Atheism is a rejection of belief in deities (usually but not always because propositions of God's existence do not pass on the scientific standard of truth) ... most atheists typically don't care enough about the concept of God one way or another to make a worldview out of it. It is just a viewpoint, a perspective, not a worldview or perspective on life.

[DTB123]

Quote by: Morality Games Explain Victim complexes are psychological conditions where people on basis of bias rather than objective analysis interpret information in a way that allows them to perceive themelves as the wronged good person and the others as evil and bad.

As a Christian; I rarely see myself as such.

No, for god's sake, stop acting like a four-year old, insisting that the right way to bake a cake is with mud instead of flour. Having already explained why you are wrong, I have no choice but to sit back and relax until you somehow overthrow the established order of contemporary language.

"For God's sake?" I thought you didn't believe in Him?

Atheism is a rejection of belief in deities (usually but not always because propositions of God's existence do not pass on the scientific standard of truth) ... most atheists typically don't care enough about the concept of God one way or another to make a worldview out of it. It is just a viewpoint, a perspective, not a worldview or perspective on life.

Boy; what ever do you mean "the scientific standard of truth?" That could be as variable as the weather; depending upon who you ask. It is common knowledge that the Bible is in harmony with science; it is not an opposing force which contests true scientific principles. One of many examples is the Bible was the first book to say in print that the world was not in fact flat; and that it was round. You don't know what you are talking about here; because you don't know the Bible.

[Morality Games]

[quote=DTB123;493368]As a Christian; I rarely see myself as such.

"For God's sake?" I thought you didn't believe in Him?

I'm not really sure how to respond to this -- it seems too pathetic to take notice of.

Boy; what ever do you mean "the scientific standard of truth?" That could be as variable as the weather; depending upon who you ask.

Hey, absolute fiction! While there are different models of the scientific method, academics have narrowed it down to a few in which variation between is not at all like the weather.

It is common knowledge that the Bible is in harmony with science; it is not an opposing force which contests true scientific principles.

I'll assume you are the allegorical type. I'm not criticizing that until there is occassion for it.

One of many exampleThis is the Bible was the first book to say in print that the world was not in fact flat; and that it was round.

First of all, you are wrong -- the Bible compares the shape of the world to a map (with four corners), aka, a flat square), and this was used as basis for centuries as to why the world was flat. The belief gradually died out because respect for Aristotle was greater than determination to get dogmatic about such a moot point. Second of all, that is not a point of evidence. for your view the Bible does not contradict scientific principles. You need to actually casually relate it to the logical form of science and show how the two are non-contrary.

I think it is a sign of desperation you would mention something so absurd as a proof that the Bible does not contradict science.

You don't know what you are talking about here; because you don't know the Bible.

Read the Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Bible, and Qu'ran. Snap.

[Halofan48]

That's pretty ignorant. People have been Christians and died willing for being so in some of the most repressive regimes in history. Getting shot isn't as deterrent as being hung naked from a cross or being burnt at the stake in the public square or being hung naked from a cross and being burnt on it to light someone's garden, for instance. The fact that the government is so repressive of Christians actually serves to spread the belief amongst those who resent the government's oppression and empathize with the Christians. Read up on some history, Halo.

How is it ignorant? Really, if anyone is being ignorant, it'd be you making claim that no matter your background and environment, you'd be a christian. Look, to your little argument about rebelling, if they have never heard of something, they aren't going to believe it. Plus, you'd be surprised how many people can follow something that you may not believe in. Some of it's propaganda, some of it's just they like the way it is, etc.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games I don't know why theists constantly try the, "Atheism is a religion," approach, as though the idea of a worldivew that is not a religion is inconceivable. You seriously need to study a bit more before you start asserting such obvious nonsense. Atheism is not based on faith, but on historical, logical, psychological, and scientific criticisms of biblical text and associations. And once again, atheism isn't even a worldview, let alone a relgion! It is a philosophical viewpoint, no different nominalism, conceptualism, foundationalism, anti-foundationalism, functionalism, physicalism, dualism, etc... the term may have humanistic connatations, but it lacks properties necessary for it to be considered a life stance. Usually, people called atheists would better be known as humanists.

History has had enough humanist religious figures that the term doesn't fit well with atheist. A humanist is concerned with worldly views and is not required to lack belief. There have been humanist popes, who in addition to expanding the power of the church meddled in political affairs and wars.

Humanitarianism is also a religion at least in the US where its "clergy" are able to claim the tax status enjoyed by other religions.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: DTB123 Actually; it only took me 10-15 seconds to make that post. Atheism, in it's most obvious sense, is indeed devotion to a cause, and a set of values inherent in the non-belief of deities.

What set of values is encompassed by the word "atheism"?

The intricate system of "apologetics" developed by atheists to supposedly debunk Christians is all the proof anyone needs to decide if atheism is indeed a world religion, under the guise of "unbelief." They believe in "unbelief!!"

Under this bizarre logic, I could say many Christians like ice cream, therefore, Christianity is about ice cream.

Is science a religion too? Science often debunks Christians. Note: if you say science is a religion... I'm not going to even bother replying.

[Lullaby Chainer]

PF, if someone were born in a Muslim family in an extremist Islamic society..

Is it more likely that they'd become a Muslim or a Christian?

No one is talking about absolutes. Don't even try that crap.

[Chris]

Quote by: HelioPrime Your the one comparing two different systems. One based off belief and one based of fact. Religion is based of personal experience and interpretation. Science is fact and knowledge. Everyone knows or should understand evolution. Some of us just choose to take our belief and see that as a long process clearly directed and intended by a higher power. The creation story spread out over time. The writers of the bible had no concept of any great length of time, the only reason 7 days was used is it was likely a time within their limited realm of understanding or taken from earlier myth to appease pagans. You, like so many atheists assume the bible MUST be taken literally and then religion debunked on that sole basis.

so when did god create man? what day? so you equate the time from day 1 to that day to be the time the earth was formed until men evolved? that is a gap so huge i doubt you can get your head around. billions of years versus thousands.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chris so when did god create man? what day? so you equate the time from day 1 to that day to be the time the earth was formed until men evolved? that is a gap so huge i doubt you can get your head around. billions of years versus thousands.

Since it was simple men who were influenced to write the stories in the bible they did what they could without any knowledge. I'm sure none of them could conceive any lengthy period of time, so 1 day was either the best guessed answer or just copied to appeal to pagans better.

[Morality Games]

History has had enough humanist religious figures that the term doesn't fit well with atheist.

A long time ago. Humanism has been associated with deism, pantheism, and atheism for the last couple centuries, however, and has become very secularized in the last hundred years. Please stop your asinine use of language.

A humanist is concerned with worldly views and is not required to lack belief. There have been humanist popes, who in addition to expanding the power of the church meddled in political affairs and wars.

That's nice, but the term 'humanist' is usually applied negatively when used by the religious today, mostly because they know it refers to secularists. There are still some people who are genuinely religious who consider themselves humanists, but they typically aren't the topic of conversation (ergo, the activity of contemporary language) because they aren't controversial enough.

Humanitarianism is also a religion at least in the US where its "clergy" are able to claim the tax status enjoyed by other religions.

Because one judge decided a form of it functioned enough like a religion to warrant tax exempt status, but it has also been noted that under no public law is it considered a religion.

For the record, I am not a humanist.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games A long time ago. Humanism has been associated with deism, pantheism, and atheism for lack couple centuries, however, and has become very secularized in the last hundred years. Please stop your asinine use of language.

Do I need to drag up the thread dedicated to the meaning of words? How select members stand firm that words are absolute in meaning and do not vary?

I'm well aware of what humanism means today, hence why it has its own associated religion.

That's nice, but the term 'humanist' is usually applied negatively when used by the religious today, mostly because they know it refers to secularists. There are still some people who are genuinely religious who consider themselves humanists, but they typically aren't the topic of conversation (hence, the activity of contemporary language) because they aren't controversial enough.

Every read the nice long piece called the humanist manefiesto? I might have spelled it wrong in use but please look it up, you can find it online. That item written for group considering itself the official humanitarianism religion is why I don't think much of anyone who calls themselves a humanist.

Because one judge decided a form of it functioned enough like a religion to warrant tax exempt status, but it has also been noted that under no public law is it considered a religion.

It's as much a religion as any other group of 5 people of more who claim a religion. I see no reason why a bunch of secularist would desire such so I can only assume their just taking advantage of tax laws for their own ill gain. Some group of people.

[Morality Games]

Do I need to drag up the thread dedicated to the meaning of words? How select members stand firm that words are absolute in meaning and do not vary?

No, but your assertion 'the term does not fit well with atheists' is senseless, because the term 'humanist' and 'atheist' are often treated as interchangeable. Don't make functionless statements if you don't want people to criticize you for them.

I have never heard anyone on this forum insist words have an absolute or invariant meaning or sought to prove how, you are just determined to misunderstand their arguments that way. That's your vice, not theirs.

I'm well aware of what humanism means today, hence why it has its own associated religion.

I'm afraid not.

Every read the nice long piece called the humanist manefiesto? I might have spelled it wrong in use but please look it up, you can find it online

Manifesto. Yes, I have read it. Have you read II and III, or the Secular Humanist Declaration?

The negative I would associate stems from articles such as that. A long statement of humanity as nothing more than biological process and the duty of humanist to continue to plumb the depths of science or that road to artificially producing and modifying human biology for the betterment of humanity.

I almost think it should be illegal for people to criticize views that are more sensible (aka, more consistent with the collective knowledge of the speices) than theirs. Almost. However, I am not going to argue aesthetics with you.

Moreover, it is down to you to prove how modifying human biology to make us healthier, happier, and more intelligent is evil -- humanists have already provided their demonstrations for why it is not a bad thing, and in fact a good thing. And I expect substantial proofs that relate to tangible things, not mutterings that relate to nothing appreciable outside your mind. You know, as if were were having a real argument, one where a practical conclusion could be reached.

It's as much a religion as any other group of 5 people of more who claim a religion. I see no reason why a bunch of secularist would desire such so I can only assume their just taking advantage of tax laws for their own ill gain. Some group of people.

The particular group of humanists who filed for tax exemption had a church-style hierarchy and were affiliated with less obviously religious-in-style humanist organizations -- all groups are treated as religious on basis of this connection, even as under the public law they are not considered religions. There are many varieties of humanism, just are there are many varieties of religion, with diverse customs, but they tend to stick closer together than even different denominations of Christianity.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games No, but your assertion 'the term does not fit well with atheists' is senseless, because the term 'humanist' and 'atheist' are often treated as interchangeable. Don't make functionless statements if you don't want people to criticize you for them. I have never heard anyone on this forum insist words have an absolute or invariant meaning or sought to prove how, you are just determined to misunderstand their arguments that way. That's your vice, not theirs.

As I stated, its MY assertion. Your just commenting now on my view as incorrect.

And as for absolute meaning search for definitions threads by Zhavric, famous for accepting only one meaning behind a word, often in a use to trap theists.

Manifesto. Yes, I have read it. Have you read II and III, or the Secular Humanist Declaration?

The latest one, would that be 3? And what does reinstating the new and old ones accomplish. I don't agree with their ideal of the complete secularization of society.

I almost think it should be illegal for people to criticize views that are more sensible (aka, more consistent with the collective knowledge of the speices) than theirs. Almost. However, I am not going to argue aesthetics with you. Moreover, it is down to you to prove how modifying human biology to make us healthier, happier, and more intelligent is evil -- humanists have already provided their demonstrations for why it is not a bad thing, and in fact a good thing. And I expect substantial proofs that relate to tangible things, not mutterings that relate to nothing appreciable outside your mind. You know, as if were were having a real argument, one where a practical conclusion could be reached.

Substantial proofs eh? Back to the old evidence test. Let me guess we have to find evidence for God otherwise we have have no say.

Hows this: I and many others don't agree with modifying human DNA for the purpose of just ill gain. Just wait for that to be a readily available technology. No more maternity, just pick the options you want in a baby and have it grown in a tube. And before long if you don't like the result you'll be able to just toss it out.

Amazing how lack of evidence translates into absolute truths in your mind. Is there any consideration of the moral implications of modifying human DNA just for better children or does the humanist view simply claim that morals are only relative to upbringing. If we were all raise as logical little atheists then we would have no qualms.

Because attempting to eliminate religion worked so well in building a better society in the Soviet Union.

The particular group of humanists who filed for tax exemption had a church-style hierarchy and were affiliated with less obviously religious-in-style humanist organizations -- all groups are treated as religious on basis of this connection, even as under the public law they are not considered religions. There are many varieties of humanism, just are there are many varieties of religion, with diverse customs, but they tend to stick closer together than even different denominations of Christianity.

So why did they fill for tax exemption? So basically they are the religious followers of secular thinking. Thanks for helping to show how non theist is a belief system.