Again, 'satanist' is a term with two meanings. Non-theistic satanism, which someone like mind would consider 'devil worship', is still satanism. Theistic satanism (true devil worship) differs markedly. Non-theistic satanism doesn't believe in God or Satan. Theistic, however, intrinsically embraces both, while choosing to worship Satan.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Ahhhh, OK I see what yer saying now.Quote by: Angry Citizen
The first definition is sort of a misnomer no?
Probably. I think non-theistic satanists choose the term solely out of its shock value, i.e., they aren't atheists merely for rational reasons, but as a direct attack on Christianity, and due to ideological reasons. Some of their philosophy seems good and/or palatable, and I think it's pretty clear that what they do is very, very different from what actual devil-worshipers do or have been said to do, but it is their own choice to choose a terminology for themselves that implies a direct negation of Christianity and thus you cannot really defend them too much from Christians who want to complain, unless they make accusations which simply aren't true.
While in College...and for about a year afterwards...I had the dubious distinction of being the front-man for a common bar band. During this time, I met allot of "weirdos", many of whom called themselves "Satanists".
They'd carry about the Satanic Bible by Le Vey, and cite all sorts of nonsense from it. generally I'd just smile and say, "Gee, that's really interesting." while thinking to myself, 'Week-minded fool!" There was one word-game I used to like to play on them though. It never seemed to fail because, well, lets face it, anyone who follows the drivel in Le Vey's book, is not really terribly on the ball...
So they proudly announce, "I believe in Satan!"
And I'd say, "Cool...have you read the Satanic Bible?"
"Of course! Its my bible!"
(lol...they never failed...such thickness can only be attributed to having been dropped on their heads repeatedly as a child...lol)
"So, you've read the Christian Bible then...of course?"
"Oh Fu%$ no, God is my enemy! I don't believe in God!"
(got 'im...twit...lol)
"Oh but you do." I'd say. "'cause if you believe in the Devil, you MUST believe in his enemy...thus you believe in God too."
LOL...this never failed to rock their world.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that Satan...as with the Tea Party...seems to always attract the dullest of the dull...
I have no problem saying that Christians, as much as anyone else, can make poor decisions. Religions, because they are human institutions, will still be subject to the imperfections of man. Theists who have said otherwise are foolish. Having said all this, religions should not be judged based on the actions on its adherents. They should be contemplated based on their teachings.
Not really. The longevity of the Byzantine Empire pales in comparison to the timespan of the Papacy. The Papacy has existed since Peter I in the first century, so obviously no disassociation of Church and political power ever occurred. Constantine's adoption of Catholicism simply reaffirmed its presence.
Excuse me, but what does this have to do with the God of Love? Social workers help people's live tremendously, and their work has nothing to do with religion or God (not to mention they are extremely underpaid).
People can be helped out of bad lifestyles without churches. The only reason why people go to church to get help is because it's built into their mindset that some sort of supreme being will "forgive" them and use his magical hand to guide him.
I originally called you out because you said something along the lines of "atheists tend to be less moral than christians". I hope you know that that statement is false by now.
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
In that case, I have a couple of points to make based on modern religions (and particularly Christianity, as I am less familiar with others):
1. They have all failed miserably to follow their own teachings. (I think this goes almost without saying, and needs no supporting statements.)
2. The teachings of most modern religions are based on cultures from long ago in the past, and while a few of the doctrines they held are still useful and applicable moral norms for today, most of them are neither properly understood in today's moral climate nor in fact can be. The books of the Bible were written in times very different from today. To attempt to clump them all together into a single, uniform, consistent book of moral teachings is ludicrous enough, but to try to apply the vast majority of them in a meaningful way to a culture that is nothing like the cultures under which the books were formed is more absurd yet.
The idea was raised that "Christians are morally sound" and was debunked...easily...
The reply to this is...your comments remind me of people who get off the main subject and eventually end up all confused. what are you talking about debunked easily? don't just talk with out backing up your statement, that is easy and lazy talk. i can do that all day too..... [imitating confused person] atheist have no morals, that can easily be debunked and has been many times.To go along with your claim furthermore, I can pretty much guarantee that all humans act immorally at some point in their lives. You can be a virtual saint and still commit immoral acts. Thus, expecting Christians to lead perfectly morally lives is a silly request at best and is certainly a humorous way to debunk Christianity.
you can go further along all the way to pluto if you want, but your journey is the same-- is that of a blind man. it is common sense that humans sometimes may act immorally, hell, they sometimes do it with out noticing they are doing something wrong. people kill other people due to their ignorance, like an ignorant person giving medicine to a drunk person. they may think that they are helping them but in reality they are killing that person. same with a parent and a kid. a parent might allow the little kids play with a cat, and every intelligent person knows that cat fecal matter carries this virus that once you get it, you get it for life. the body of an adult person will have a stronger immune system so will most likely keep the virus in check (if that person was to become infected with the virus), but not a little kids immune system.
back to my point. i never said that christians sometimes don't act immoral. what i said is "they have more morals than atheists." there's a huge difference. this goes to shows how you fail to see the main point. unless you just want to bully or due to ignorance. i also said that there are many fake-christians which is true, but you say that just because one believes, one is automatically a religious person. in other words, if i believe i'm a basketball player and JUST say so, i am a basketball player. that is nonsense.
i don't know why you keep laughing when there is nothing to laugh about.
the rest of your comments are childish and do not have any support behind your statements. not worth answering.
buzz62, may i suggest not to be buzzing when debating, thanks :)
exactly! you said the following...No. You're a scientist if your job is to study of the natural world: belief in evolution is irrelevant to you being a nuclear physicist or not.
now lets look at these two statements a little closer. in your reply above you said that just believing in evolution does not make you any type of scientist. what does make you a scientist is by walking the path. now, looking at your next quote, you are failing to see the same thing about christians. a non true christian can say he is a christian till he is blue in the face (he may actually be one) but if he does not walk the path, he is not (he is not actually one). you are generalizing, and while doing that, failing to see the obvious.As long as somebody believes Christ died for their sin, he's a christian. The rest is details: he can be a non-practicing christian, a christian murderer, I don't care.
if you don't want to debate about such statements why respond to such statementsWe can debate without that kind of statement, thanks
my main point is that i've watched many documentatries about almost anything, this anything includes atheists (besides my personal experience with some). so i know that emo/goth/vampires is not just a fad that disapears as an adult. there are a lot of adults who don't grow out of that "fad." or that got in that "fad" as an adult. furthermore, a true religious person with morals would never fall in to that fad in the first place. a true religious person learns to deal with pear pressure and the like that most vulnerable, lost, teens go through.I don't own a TV and it's been almost 2 years since I last watched a movie. What's your point exactly? All I can tell is that many friends of mine have been emo/goth/vampires at some point and that it was nothing more than a fashion thing that lasted for a few months, maybe a year. Don't trust those rating-seeking programs who seek the odd self-destructive case to create rightful indignation among viewers.
to be more precise, morality is not complicated to understand. it is complicated to practice. but my point is that you don't understand what morality really is besides your own definition of morality.Morality is complicated, deal with it. But what I wrote isn't.
that is not the issue. if everyone is capable of moral deeds, than, wow, everyone has morals even charles manson. Charles Manson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe rapist is capable of moral deeds, yeah. That doesn't mean he lives by moral principles.
the issue is that true religious people have more morals and that god is about the good and not the bad. i don't think you really understand what morals are. which is common among atheists.
now i'm off to play my ps3.
Which is untrue, as many people have already pointed out.
I'm done arguing with you. I prefer not to debate people who's arguments run in circles.
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
A scientist is by definition one who does science.
A Christian is by definition one who believes in Christ. There is no dictionary definition that requires a Christian to follow a particular set of rules, or anything like that. There are atheist Christians, for example. Christianity is characterized by believing in, and to some degree following, the teachings of Christ.
While science is pretty much a concrete and precisely definable process, believing in and following the teachings of Christ is something that is open to definition. That's the difference. There's only one way to do science. But while nearly all Christians (including some whose beliefs are about as different from yours as anyone's beliefs could be) like to believe that there is only "one true path" of Christianity, in reality things are not so simple.
Religion is to a large degree a matter of interpretation; you have to choose what verse X means or does not mean. Someone else is going to interpret it differently from you. This is a system far removed from the precision of science. While there are little details scientists will disagree about, the ultimate results are always the same: test a hypothesis and if it doesn't work, throw it out. There is no equivalent in religion, no analogous component to the "hypothesis" or to the "experiment." You only have the sincere belief that the path you are following is the correct one, but there is no way to prove it.
They make documentaries about atheists? How frightfully useful. There are about as many different types of atheist as there are types of anything else. Atheists, unlike Christians, do not have on overriding belief that unites them all. They happen to lack a belief in common, but they don't necessarily have any in common.
Everybody learns to deal with peer pressure. Some deal with it by caving, and others deal with it by rebelling against the flow. There are all kinds of ways of dealing with it. Religious people aren't particularly better at it than anyone else. And don't give me this stuff about "true" religious people. I think what you mean is "devout" religious people, not "true" religious people. And yes, more devout people will do things differently from less devout people. That's only obvious. Doesn't make you better.
Indeed, no one does.
In fact I suspect he does, although his morals certainly don't agree with mine on many points.
Again, "devout" is more accurate a word than "true" when you're talking about religion. There's not much true about any religion so far as I can tell.
In my experience, rational atheists tend to have a better understanding of the concept of morality than theists, but perhaps that's an unfair generalization.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks