Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
That's just one of many genocides over a 300 year period.....and most perpetrated by those who called themselves Christians
62
General Religious Discussion / Re: Good and Evil
« Last post by Sinister Minister on Yesterday at 06:24:47 PM »
That's not true.  JWs share the same beliefs across the globe. 

How can this be true when dogma continues to change?

1914 "Millions now living will never die".  Do you believe this is true? 
Or did the JWs make a false prophecy?
http://jehovah.net.au/books/Millions_Now_Living_Will_Never_Die.pdf

Q. If a member of Jehovah's witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong, and said so, would he be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so, and kept on persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erroneous, and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across, then there is a disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching ...... Our purpose is to have unity.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/131122/1954-douglas-walsh-transcript-pdf?size=20&page=1#.UuTWZhB9K70
63
For the antitheists here, it is up to you what you are.  I'm not telling you what to be.  I only ask that you own up to what you are and not try to hide behind the term "atheist".  You affect the reputation of atheists.

Again, is there a problem with identifying as both. Are you claiming an anti theist shouldn't identify an atheist?

They are not the same.  One lacks belief.  The other rejects belief and wants others to do the same.

You never did address the bolded part.  People can reasonably identify as things that are not the same, so long as they don't contradict.

By the definition you give in brief here, one would have to be an atheist in order to be an anti-theist.  So what's the problem?

Thanks for that, I kept wondering why he wouldn't address such a simple question.

I just seen him in here about 30 minutes ago, so I guess he had too much on his plate to deal with. It amazes me with "god" believers how when they're presented with so much logic and reason, but they still don't want to admit to being wrong.

Like I said earlier, indoctrination is a helluva drug! Rick James. Except he said 'Cocaine, it's a helluva drug".
64
Groups, Events, & Activism / Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Last post by velkyn on Yesterday at 05:55:51 PM »
update:  good ol' Ray has emailed Hemat Mehta and said that he's giving the cards to the "homeless".   funny how it took public shaming to get the TrueChristian to do the right thing.   
65
General Religious Discussion / Re: Theists, Do you pray before you post?
« Last post by Jag on Yesterday at 05:39:40 PM »
Thing is how often do hear the Lord's Prayer?  I never at church heard it much less prayed it. 
Catholics include it too.
66
Groups, Events, & Activism / Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 05:35:59 PM »
Um. This former social worker would give him a dozen quatloos for those cards.

A food bank or a homeless shelter would be happy to have those sandwich gift cards. There are veteran's organizations that would take them. I could donate them to a low-income public school so all the kids could have an end of year picnic. I could give them to the public library and they could distribute them to anyone who applies for a library card and checks out a book of their choice.
 
He can keep his religious literature, though.  :angel:
67
General Religious Discussion / Re: My experience with internet "atheists"
« Last post by median on Yesterday at 05:27:14 PM »
When I look at things in the Bible I look at them from the perspective of the good reputation that God has personally made with me and those around me.  I think this is a more reliable method of determining the type of person God is because I am not left with blanks that you find in the historical record.  To me, the best way to know the type of person that someone is is to know them personally.

All of these "atheist" arguments about the character of God are wrapped in "ifs, ands, and buts".  "What if" the Egyptians were good people?  "But" God could have done something else instead.  It goes on and on and on.  None of them are based on knowing the facts and they all contain a bias against any reasoning provided in the scriptures.  It's as if anything could be true except what's actually recorded.  To hear an "atheist" tell it, God flooded an earth full of righteous people.  Israel's enemies were just innocent victims.  The Egyptians didn't deserve punishment.  Disguised in all of this is the arrogant premise that they know who should and shouldn't be punished and that they know the solution to the ailments of mankind's problems.  They are setting themselves up as the judge of what is right and what is wrong, nevermind that thousands of years of human rulership have passed and we're still struggling with just the basic necessities of life.   

Yet, while they revile God for interfering in the past, they turn and revile him for not interfereing now.  While they think it is right to punish wrongdoing, it is wrong for God to do so, again as if they are the judge of what is right and wrong.  While they think it is right to protect their children, it is wrong for God to do so.  However, when you press them on what is right and wrong you'll get the answer, "it's subjective".  Of course that's only as long as you're not talking about God.  If you're talking about God then it's wrong.

What I have noted, is that at least a large group of internet atheists ,is that they are not atheists.  They are antitheists.  An atheist is one that "lacks a belief in gods".  I've met some in my life.  They are different than antitheists.  Having a "lack of belief in gods" does not motivate one to spend their time reviling the character of God, actively trying to get people to disblieve in God, ridiculing believers because they believe in God, and cherry picking the scriptures.  That fits the defintion of an "antitheist" which is one that is "opposed to belief in the existence of a god".

Those of you that do such things should really stop hiding behind the term "atheist".  You hide behind simply "lacking a belief in god", but that's not really true.  You do not just simply lack a belief in gods.  You actively oppose belief in gods, making you an antitheist. 

Are any of you here actually atheist?

Let's start from the bottom. No one is "hiding" behind the term atheist if we stand against your conception of god (i.e. - Yahweh/Jehovah) and neither are we athitheists for doing that. Such an assertion would mean that we not only lack belief in a god or gods but that we are also opposed to the belief in any notion of a god or gods existing (a category that I for one am not a part of since, in general, I have yet to have any theist be able to coherently define for me what "god" means in positive terms). As I've said before, so far as I can tell that word has no meaning and no content. It ultimately comes down to "God/spirit is not this, not that, not here, not there" and I can do nothing with that definition. There is literally nothing to work with. So I can't even be against belief in a conception that has no content since that is just irrational double-think. "Hey! God is something...but not something! I can't tell you what he is but I can tell you what he's not! (even though I'm referring to him as a 'he', and 'he' talks and does stuff [like a person]...and stuff)."

Second, I'm not reviling "god". I'm rejecting the conceptions of Yahweh/Jehovah, Allah, and other specific conceptions/beliefs of alleged deities that I find to be both nonsensical and harmful to human beings. I don't believe those alleged 'things' are real (or ever were). It is the followers of those beliefs (and the actions they do in the name of those beliefs) that I abhor.

Third, regarding "if, ands, and buts", you are off the mark. It is those very "scriptures" that I do not accept as authoritative. Knowing the alleged "facts" is a claim. How can you claim to know the facts about the scriptures? Do you have some monopoly on how to interpret those texts? Do you have objective evidence that demonstrates why we should accept them as an authority on anything-at-all (including morality)? Why is it that your move is always to interpret those passages favorably instead of with skepticism? Could it be due to the way you were raised and/or the culture/society/family you were raised in?

Additionally, most of us non-believers do not claim "It's all subjective" about morality. Most of us simply define morality differently than you do. We do not accept claims of religious based divine command theory morality ("god said so and therefore it's good", etc); neither do we accept claims of, "That which is good is that which conforms to god's unchanging nature." In general, many of us define morality as that which pertains to the well being of conscious creatures. Want to try to define morality in some different way? Fine, we can have that debate (and we non-believers might say that we don't care about your definition of morality if it points to some alleged invisible magic dude who violates his own rules). But there is no inconsistency in our position (by and large). We simply do not accept your definition of what it means to be moral. Thus, when we say that your god is an immoral asshole (for allegedly telling the Israelites to slaughter women, children, and infants) we are 1) speaking from our conception of morality and 2) demonstrating that we do not accept the claim that some "god" thing said such a thing. In other words, it was clearly men who wrote and/or commanded those things and it is their commands/claims that we also stand opposed to.

Lastly, when you speak of this notion of "the good reputation God has personally made with me" it just sounds like you are deluding yourself into believing that you have some "personal relationship" with an invisible person who talks to you in your head and tells you stuff but for whom you cannot demonstrate. And for some reason you feel that that relationship trumps all logic, reason, and evidence that contradicts your worldview (such as that the bible has numerous errors, inconsistencies, redactions, and blatant logical contradictions within it and therefore cannot be the "perfect word of the creator").

In short, your alleged personal experiences with the alleged Yahweh (and your personal interpretation of said/alleged experiences) are not reliable for accurately distinguishing between what is true and what is not true. This is b/c we know human beings are prone to massive errors in judgement, fabrication, mis-remembering, lying/self deception, and confirmation bias. And this is especially the case when it comes to claims to the supernatural and/or the miraculous. Human beings constantly look for patterns and/or quick explanations; even when there are none there. Thus, personal subjective interpretations of alleged personal experiences with the supernatural are not trustworthy indicators of whether or not said happenings (or alleged "relationships") actually occurred.

And yes, getting to know someone personally is a good way to go (though not the only way to go), unless of course this alleged "person" isn't real (i.e. - is a self projection and/or self talk). All of the demonstrations we have of people existing are physical. People are physical beings and can be demonstrated. There are ZERO demonstrations of alleged "non physical" persons existing and thus your claim of having a "relationship" with an alleged non physical "person" is to be (in the very least) highly doubted.
68
Groups, Events, & Activism / Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Last post by velkyn on Yesterday at 05:21:19 PM »
It seems that Mr. Comfort thought he could have his people show up at the Mall and not have to apply for a permit to do his attempt to convert atheists. 

This means he supposedly has all of these gift cards. 

What is his solution?

"“In what is so often a cruel world, we tried to show a little kindness and it didn’t work. So it now looks like we will be eating Subway sandwiches for the next 40 years.“

Yup, ol' Ray even now can't think of actually helping out people for real.  He'll just keep his $25,000 for himself.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2794177944.html

69
General Religious Discussion / Re: Theists, Do you pray before you post?
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 05:17:26 PM »
My husband's church says it....
70
General Religious Discussion / Re: My experience with internet "atheists"
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 05:16:27 PM »
To nogods last post, that leads to a question. Why would a benevolent god, with omni- characteristics allow PsOS like Falwell to use His Name to take advantage of poor people who are in genuine need of real help? There's a whole barrel of worms waiting to be explored in that question. Does it merit a thread of its own?

I don't get it. Will one of our theist members[1] come hand-wave this away for me, so I can try to figure out why you don't wonder these things yourself?
 1. excluding CD, who keeps demonstrating sincere curiosity, and a willingness to think about her beliefs  ;)

If they are like Jst, they will just say that those televangelists are false teachers, whose existence proves that their own particular sect is right. The bible predicted that there would be false teachers, and there they are on your tv stealing from the poor. Now how to tell which sect is not composed of false teachers, when none of them have any facts or evidence.....tis a puzzlement, as Yul Brynner would put it.

If they are fans of some televangelist, they would say that if prayer candles bring a person closer to god, what's a few dollars spent on one instead of a box of diapers? Those poor people waste too much of their money on cigarettes and lotto anyway. Money sent to tv preachers will not be spent on crack.

That is what I predict they will say.  :P
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10