Am I the only athiest on here, who when...

[Dr Grump]

I think it's at least 10th hand.

Every moment in history has been tainted by human hands. Every event biased by the person recording the event. So every event is suspect. Problem is you've closed your mind to the possibilities because of your own prejudices. Who knows for sure. But making up your mind before going into the search with an assumption that it's hogwash isn't gonna change your opinion. It's impossible for you to grasp because you're closed off to it. The difference in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit. That shiver that goes up your leg that you can't explain. But since you don't believe in it's existence you can't accept it.

On the contrary, my mind is very open and has been for many years. You assume from day one that I thought it was hogwash - i didn't. for many years I believed, then I started to look at it logically. Hell, I wish I was a Christian - there doesn't seem to be a downside if it's true, right? But at the end of the day I am a pragmatist....nothing rings true about any religion as far as a God goes.

That shiver can be explained - it's biomechanical...

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it's at least 10th hand.

Every moment in history has been tainted by human hands. Every event biased by the person recording the event. So every event is suspect. Problem is you've closed your mind to the possibilities because of your own prejudices. Who knows for sure. But making up your mind before going into the search with an assumption that it's hogwash isn't gonna change your opinion. It's impossible for you to grasp because you're closed off to it. The difference in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit. That shiver that goes up your leg that you can't explain. But since you don't believe in it's existence you can't accept it.

On the contrary, my mind is very open and has been for many years. You assume from day one that I thought it was hogwash - i didn't. for many years I believed, then I started to look at it logically. Hell, I wish I was a Christian - there doesn't seem to be a downside if it's true, right? But at the end of the day I am a pragmatist....nothing rings true about any religion as far as a God goes.

That shiver can be explained - it's biomechanical...

I refer you to C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity". Here Lewis does a good job of separating the 'religion' from the 'relationship'. Christianity has been made into a religion by people who want rules and all the loose ends neatly tied up. But really all that is involved in Christianity is a relationship with the central figure upon which all the rest revolves. I am guessing that He would very much disapprove of many of the silly things we've made up in order to have a 'religion' but I'm hoping He gives us an "E" for effort when we are sincere.

But I'll agree that the religion sometimes does get in the way.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I was hoping you'd answer my post Fox.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was hoping you'd answer my post Fox.

You've made quite a few posts, Sky, and I believe my comments address the points you and others are making. We simply disagree on various points, that's all.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I was hoping you'd answer my post Fox.

You've made quite a few posts, Sky, and I believe my comments address the points you and others are making. We simply disagree on various points, that's all.

Never mind. I took great care with a post I addressed to you. If you don't want to answer it's your choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was hoping you'd answer my post Fox.

You've made quite a few posts, Sky, and I believe my comments address the points you and others are making. We simply disagree on various points, that's all.

Never mind. I took great care with a post I addressed to you. If you don't want to answer it's your choice.

Sorry I didn't see it. I've been traveling all day. I'll go back and look for it.

 

[dilloduck]

I think it's at least 10th hand.

Every moment in history has been tainted by human hands. Every event biased by the person recording the event. So every event is suspect. Problem is you've closed your mind to the possibilities because of your own prejudices. Who knows for sure. But making up your mind before going into the search with an assumption that it's hogwash isn't gonna change your opinion. It's impossible for you to grasp because you're closed off to it. The difference in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit. That shiver that goes up your leg that you can't explain. But since you don't believe in it's existence you can't accept it.

On the contrary, my mind is very open and has been for many years. You assume from day one that I thought it was hogwash - i didn't. for many years I believed, then I started to look at it logically. Hell, I wish I was a Christian - there doesn't seem to be a downside if it's true, right? But at the end of the day I am a pragmatist....nothing rings true about any religion as far as a God goes.

That shiver can be explained - it's biomechanical...

caused by something NO ONE can fully explain. Scientists prove themselves wrong everyday.

 

[Foxfyre]

How dare we discuss it....right?

Somebody starts a thread with the obvious intent to accuse or criticize or otherwise insult those who believe in God by whatever name, but they are being open minded and virtuous.

I suppose Muslims or other non-Christian believers are are authorized to chime in so long as they bash Chrsitians a bit.

But if Christians participate, we are 'ramming something down somebody's throat.' It's a bit mind boggling isn't it.

Anyhow time to leave so shutting down here. Bacjk tonight sometime.

This is a thread about atheism. My question is why do Christians care if atheists have their views?

Why do you care? I'm curious.

Can non-christians discuss christianity without it being labeled 'bashing'? Can christians discuss atheism without bashing?

I have a great respect and kind regard for most Christians, and I feel irked by minority of Christians.

Can I discuss the specific Chrstians who irk me without the rest of you taking offense?

I'm talking about the church in Las Vegas who supported Martin Ssempa, the proponent of the kill gays bill in Uganda, for example.

Do I have a right to express my concern without offending mainstream Christians?

How about my concern about LDS politically organizing against marriage equality from the pulpit? Do I have a right to question whether LDS should keep it's tax free status? Does it personally offend you, as a Christian, if I do? Why or why not?

I am really trying to understand why some Christians take offense and feel they must defend all of Christendom when the unusual deeds of a few are brought to their attention.

I'm just thinking about in my own situation. Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka are committing acts of violence. I am quite concerned about this. I don't personally feel it is an insult to me as a Buddhist if someone points out to me the wrongs being committed in Sri Lanka by Buddhist monks. Nor do I feel that these monks represent Buddhism, a non-violent religion. If I lived in Sri Lanka, I would do all I could to stop the violence. As it it now, I pray for it to end.

It seems some Christian posters say that I paint ALL Christians with the same brush. I don't. I never use the term "ALL". When I talk about Christians who worry me I have specific examples in mind. Some of the organizations listed by SPLC as hate groups FOR EXAMPLE.

I have listed Christian churches and church groups who are interested in equal rights for all people, including GLBT. I am heartened and grateful to these loviing people for their support.

Okay I presume this is it.

I haven't accused you of anything at all Sky, so you'll have to look to others for their opinion of whatever you paint with whatever brush and whatever opinions you think they hold about you.

If you think Christians are out of line for sticking up for themselves, that's your prerogative too. I sometimes choose to do so rather than let mean spirited or misinformed people set the agenda in such matters. And if somebody says something foolish or erroneous I sometimes choose to correct that. And on a discussion board intended to discuss various subjects, I sometimes choose to express my opinion about a subject. This happens to be one of interest to me. Sorry if you think I'm out of line expressing my opinion.

Edit: And. . . . it seems to me that the OP was not only affirming the member's opinion of Atheism but was bashing those who don't subscribe to the tenets of Atheism which would include Christians among others. So I don't think anybody is out of line having a discussion about that.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think it's at least 10th hand.

Every moment in history has been tainted by human hands. Every event biased by the person recording the event. So every event is suspect. Problem is you've closed your mind to the possibilities because of your own prejudices. Who knows for sure. But making up your mind before going into the search with an assumption that it's hogwash isn't gonna change your opinion. It's impossible for you to grasp because you're closed off to it. The difference in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit. That shiver that goes up your leg that you can't explain. But since you don't believe in it's existence you can't accept it.

On the contrary, my mind is very open and has been for many years. You assume from day one that I thought it was hogwash - i didn't. for many years I believed, then I started to look at it logically. Hell, I wish I was a Christian - there doesn't seem to be a downside if it's true, right? But at the end of the day I am a pragmatist....nothing rings true about any religion as far as a God goes.

That shiver can be explained - it's biomechanical...

caused by something NO ONE can fully explain. Scientists prove themselves wrong everyday.

However they have proved a lot right, too. What has religion proved right as to the existence of some omnipotent being?

 

[mudwhistle]

This video is on the youtube homepage right now. It's pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=topvideos

The video said in so many words that more intelligent people tend to take longer for form a belief. I didn't form my beliefs until I was in my 40s. I suspected but didn't truly believe.

Also it says that if you believe in God you're simple-minded. This is horseshit. I feel I have seen enough evidence that God exists to form a belief.

I guess we have different interpretations of the video; I didn't get that out of it. Faith and intellect are two separate things, imo. Intelligent people can and do believe in God.

His point is about some religious people trying to turn their faith into a logically-sound argument for the existence of God or gods. Faith and logic are mutually exclusive in this kind of argument. While an atheist can't prove the non-existence of some kind of god (whatever that word means), they can disprove the specific theistic claims made by a believer about their God... if the topic comes up and the believer tries to turn their faith into fact. I think that's why Dr Grump used The Light as an example in the OP.

The 2:15 mark in the video was the most interesting part to me, where he talks about agnosticism--how a believer in a god can technically be agnostic.

Maybe you ignored the assumptions of the video that not really having a belief is more intelligent then having one. It's a constant state of confusion when you can't make up your mind. It seems the video believes this may be a better state thinking in shades of gray rather then as the video states "flawed" black and white thinking. This indicates a bias against making choices.....particularly where belief in a supreme-being is concerned.

Having principles is important in life. Not having any seems the desired state according to your video.

Make a choice then live by it. Your vid thinks this is undesirable.

I feel no need to prove that God exists. You ether believe or you don't. Anyone's lack of belief does not effect nor change my beliefs. I feel that as a spiritual being that he exists because the Holy Spirit spoke to me. This doesn't make me stupid, just lucky. Nothing I did caused this to happen....it just did and I accept it. It makes me no better then anyone else. Anyone who feels it does really hasn't been blessed with this gift because having this gift is a life changer. The fact that I know that God exists and that he has revealed it to me doesn't mean I can go through the rest of my life looking down on others who haven't received this gift. That's what many atheist and false Christians tend to do. I don't sneer at anyone for their beliefs and when someone sneers at me for mine I feel they haven't a clue where my beliefs come from.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Somebody starts a thread with the obvious intent to accuse or criticize or otherwise insult those who believe in God by whatever name, but they are being open minded and virtuous.

I suppose Muslims or other non-Christian believers are are authorized to chime in so long as they bash Chrsitians a bit.

But if Christians participate, we are 'ramming something down somebody's throat.' It's a bit mind boggling isn't it.

Anyhow time to leave so shutting down here. Bacjk tonight sometime.

This is a thread about atheism. My question is why do Christians care if atheists have their views?

Why do you care? I'm curious.

Can non-christians discuss christianity without it being labeled 'bashing'? Can christians discuss atheism without bashing?

I have a great respect and kind regard for most Christians, and I feel irked by minority of Christians.

Can I discuss the specific Chrstians who irk me without the rest of you taking offense?

I'm talking about the church in Las Vegas who supported Martin Ssempa, the proponent of the kill gays bill in Uganda, for example.

Do I have a right to express my concern without offending mainstream Christians?

How about my concern about LDS politically organizing against marriage equality from the pulpit? Do I have a right to question whether LDS should keep it's tax free status? Does it personally offend you, as a Christian, if I do? Why or why not?

I am really trying to understand why some Christians take offense and feel they must defend all of Christendom when the unusual deeds of a few are brought to their attention.

I'm just thinking about in my own situation. Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka are committing acts of violence. I am quite concerned about this. I don't personally feel it is an insult to me as a Buddhist if someone points out to me the wrongs being committed in Sri Lanka by Buddhist monks. Nor do I feel that these monks represent Buddhism, a non-violent religion. If I lived in Sri Lanka, I would do all I could to stop the violence. As it it now, I pray for it to end.

It seems some Christian posters say that I paint ALL Christians with the same brush. I don't. I never use the term "ALL". When I talk about Christians who worry me I have specific examples in mind. Some of the organizations listed by SPLC as hate groups FOR EXAMPLE.

I have listed Christian churches and church groups who are interested in equal rights for all people, including GLBT. I am heartened and grateful to these loviing people for their support.

Okay I presume this is it.

I haven't accused you of anything at all Sky, so you'll have to look to others for their opinion of whatever you paint with whatever brush and whatever opinions you think they hold about you.

If you think Christians are out of line for sticking up for themselves, that's your prerogative too. I sometimes choose to do so rather than let mean spirited or misinformed people set the agenda in such matters. And if somebody says something foolish or erroneous I sometimes choose to correct that. And on a discussion board intended to discuss various subjects, I sometimes choose to express my opinion about a subject. This happens to be one of interest to me. Sorry if you think I'm out of line expressing my opinion.

Edit: And. . . . it seems to me that the OP was not only affirming the member's opinion of Atheism but was bashing those who don't subscribe to the tenets of Atheism which would include Christians among others. So I don't think anybody is out of line having a discussion about that.

Can an atheist discuss what it's like to be an atheist, including what it's like for him or her to interact with religious people, including Christians?

At what point does sharing a persona truth become 'bashing'?

My personal truth is that as a lesbian, I am concerned about the Las Vegas church that supported Martin Ssempa, the primary proponent of kill gays legislation in Uganda.

This is a minority view among Christians, yet it is one I'm leery of.

Can I make that claim without ALL Christians thinking I address them?

I can also say truthfully that I'm concerned about Christian groups, like the LDS, who do their political organizing against marriage equality legislation from the pulpit. I question their right to continue to have tax free status. Is that Christian bashing to you?

Am I painting ALL Christians with the same broad paintbrush? I don't think so.

I am pointing out specific actions that concern me.

I'm concerned about the GOP being heavily influenced by evangelicals. The Texas and Montana GOP platforms include recriminalizing homosexuality. That concerns me.

I have no problem with Christian Churches teaching against homosexuality, that it is a sin, etc etc. What I have a problem with is them organizing politically to legislate THIR morality for all others.

My experience of most Christians is that they are kind and thoughtful people. There are many churches and religious organizations who champion civil rights equality. To them, I owe my gratitude and solidarity.

What surprises me sometimes is when a Christian poster supports another Christian regardless of whether that action is skillful or not. I don't support the violence in Sri Lanka by Buddhist monks just because I'm Buddhist. Violence is heretical to the Buddha's teaching. I am saddened and aggrieved that it goes on in that part of the world and if I could stop it, I would.

 

[Foxfyre]

Atheists don't usually discuss why they don't believe in a god or gods. Atheists who post on these boards more usually criticize Christians because they do. And THAT, in my opinion, is bashing.

I, a Christian, critiize nobody who expresses a personal truth or conviction. I, as a free thinking American, criticize anybody who presumes to belittle or demean another person for their personal beliefs that harm nobody. When somebody says stupid, ignorant, erroneous, and sometimes hateful things about Christianity, I will sometimes choose to correct the stupid, ignorant, erroneous, or hateful statement. Sometimes I just write off the people who behave that way as trolls, idiots, or exercises in futility, but I don't see any good that comes from calling them that.

I am not Buddhist, but to the best of my ability, I don't believe I have ever said anything unkind or erroneous about Buddhism, nor have I accused Buddhists of believing things Buddhists don't believe. I look dubiously at those who presume to say unkind or erroneous things about Christianity, most especially when it is obvious they don't have a clue about what they are talking about, and most especially when they will then defend another religion that is far more militant, extreme, intolerant, or that engages in teaching people to be that way.

I will discuss almost anything with anybody who is actually interested in discussing that subject. I am not interesting in discussing much of anything with those who are obviously mean spirited, judgmental, and have no interest in learning anything but are interesting in getting in their licks. Those who do enjoy that are certainly capable and within their rights to do that. It is not my cup of tea.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Atheists don't usually discuss why they don't believe in a god or gods. Atheists who post on these boards more usually criticize Christians because they do. And THAT, in my opinion, is bashing.

I, a Christian, critiize nobody who expresses a personal truth or conviction. I, as a free thinking American, criticize anybody who presumes to belittle or demean another person for their personal beliefs that harm nobody. When somebody says stupid, ignorant, erroneous, and sometimes hateful things about Christianity, I will sometimes choose to correct the stupid, ignorant, erroneous, or hateful statement. Sometimes I just write off the people who behave that way as trolls, idiots, or exercises in futility, but I don't see any good that comes from calling them that.

I am not Buddhist, but to the best of my ability, I don't believe I have ever said anything unkind or erroneous about Buddhism, nor have I accused Buddhists of believing things Buddhists don't believe. I look dubiously at those who presume to say unkind or erroneous things about Christianity, most especially when it is obvious they don't have a clue about what they are talking about, and most especially when they will then defend another religion that is far more militant, extreme, intolerant, or that engages in teaching people to be that way.

I will discuss almost anything with anybody who is actually interested in discussing that subject. I am not interesting in discussing much of anything with those who are obviously mean spirited, judgmental, and have no interest in learning anything but are interesting in getting in their licks. Those who do enjoy that are certainly capable and within their rights to do that. It is not my cup of tea.

I don't believe you addressed any of the specific points I raised in my post. I feel no threat to Buddhism being criticised. I look with great heartache at what's going on in Sri Lanka and I condemn it.

I wonder why it isn't possible for some Christians to condemn other Christian sects when what they are doing is harmful to others.

Are you suggesting that I am mean spiritied, judgmental and have no interest in learning about Christianity?

Are you saying that my report of the one Christian Church supporting Martin Ssempa, Uganda's proponent of kill gays legislation is erroneous? What about the story of the three Christian ministers who spoke in Uganda and stirred this whole thing up.

Do you share any concern with me over some Christian churches who demonize gay and lesbian citizens--calling us nazis?

Do you think it is right and fair to call Islam on its shots when it espouses violence toward gays and lesbians just as much as calling the vocal minority of Christians who support the same?

What if we all agreed to take care of business in America, where we live?

 

[Newby]

Atheists don't usually discuss why they don't believe in a god or gods. Atheists who post on these boards more usually criticize Christians because they do. And THAT, in my opinion, is bashing.

I, a Christian, critiize nobody who expresses a personal truth or conviction. I, as a free thinking American, criticize anybody who presumes to belittle or demean another person for their personal beliefs that harm nobody. When somebody says stupid, ignorant, erroneous, and sometimes hateful things about Christianity, I will sometimes choose to correct the stupid, ignorant, erroneous, or hateful statement. Sometimes I just write off the people who behave that way as trolls, idiots, or exercises in futility, but I don't see any good that comes from calling them that.

I am not Buddhist, but to the best of my ability, I don't believe I have ever said anything unkind or erroneous about Buddhism, nor have I accused Buddhists of believing things Buddhists don't believe. I look dubiously at those who presume to say unkind or erroneous things about Christianity, most especially when it is obvious they don't have a clue about what they are talking about, and most especially when they will then defend another religion that is far more militant, extreme, intolerant, or that engages in teaching people to be that way.

I will discuss almost anything with anybody who is actually interested in discussing that subject. I am not interesting in discussing much of anything with those who are obviously mean spirited, judgmental, and have no interest in learning anything but are interesting in getting in their licks. Those who do enjoy that are certainly capable and within their rights to do that. It is not my cup of tea.

Well said.

 

[edthecynic]

I will discuss almost anything with anybody who is actually interested in discussing that subject.

Baloney!

 

[Sky Dancer]

I will discuss almost anything with anybody who is actually interested in discussing that subject.

Baloney!

I'm interested in discussing the concerns I have with extremist Christians. Are moderate Christians interested and available to discuss my concerns with me without taking offense?

Most Christians are kind hearted, every day people. I don't fear them or feel averse to them. I feel a kinship because I too practice a spiritual path.

I also feel a kinship with atheists, because my spiritual path is non'-theistic, which makes me technically atheist.

There is an American pastor who preaches execuation for gays and uses Bible references. Now, Newby pointed out to me that that pastor misquotes the Bible and misinterprets the meaning. I find that kind of inquiry helpful.

I don't study the Bible because it isn't my holy book, so I have to rely on the testimony of devout Christians who do.

 

[Newby]

I will discuss almost anything with anybody who is actually interested in discussing that subject.

Baloney!

I'm interested in discussing the concerns I have with extremist Christians. Are moderate Christians interested and available to discuss my concerns with me without taking offense?

Most Christians are kind hearted, every day people. I don't fear them or feel averse to them. I feel a kinship because I too practice a spiritual path.

I also feel a kinship with atheists, because my spiritual path is non'-theistic, which makes me technically atheist.

There is an American pastor who preaches execuation for gays and uses Bible references. Now, Newby pointed out to me that that pastor misquotes the Bible and misinterprets the meaning. I find that kind of inquiry helpful.

I don't study the Bible because it isn't my holy book, so I have to rely on the testimony of devout Christians who do.

Why do you feel the need to discuss 'extremist christians' exactly? I see them as irrelevent, I see you making a mountain out of a molehill for the very puspose of putting christians in a bad light, any christians. I don't see your inquiry as honest, I guess that's the bottom line. I've discussed many topics with you, explained my point of view many times, yet you are still dishonest and make dishonest remarks over and over and over again. If you interacted in an honest fashion, I might feel differently, but after the recent experiences I've had in any dialouge with you I simply do not trust you or your motives.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Then, why hassle atheists? You believe in God, they don't, so what?

Just for some clarity here... who started this thread?

Immie

Are you saying you felt hassled as a Christian by the OP? Why?

 

[Newby]

Then, why hassle atheists? You believe in God, they don't, so what?

Just for some clarity here... who started this thread?

Immie

Are you saying you felt hassled as a Christian by the OP? Why?

It's not surprising that you wouldn't see his comments as an insult, par for the course. He can't discuss atheism without insulting all of those who do not think as he does? Why did he feel the need to do that?

And if by some minor miracle it turns out that there is some sort of god out there, he or she would be sorely disappointed with the quality of his or her recruits

 

[Sheldon]

The video said in so many words that more intelligent people tend to take longer for form a belief. I didn't form my beliefs until I was in my 40s. I suspected but didn't truly believe.

Also it says that if you believe in God you're simple-minded. This is horseshit. I feel I have seen enough evidence that God exists to form a belief.

I guess we have different interpretations of the video; I didn't get that out of it. Faith and intellect are two separate things, imo. Intelligent people can and do believe in God.

His point is about some religious people trying to turn their faith into a logically-sound argument for the existence of God or gods. Faith and logic are mutually exclusive in this kind of argument. While an atheist can't prove the non-existence of some kind of god (whatever that word means), they can disprove the specific theistic claims made by a believer about their God... if the topic comes up and the believer tries to turn their faith into fact. I think that's why Dr Grump used The Light as an example in the OP.

The 2:15 mark in the video was the most interesting part to me, where he talks about agnosticism--how a believer in a god can technically be agnostic.

Maybe you ignored the assumptions of the video that not really having a belief is more intelligent then having one. It's a constant state of confusion when you can't make up your mind. It seems the video believes this may be a better state thinking in shades of gray rather then as the video states "flawed" black and white thinking. This indicates a bias against making choices.....particularly where belief in a supreme-being is concerned.

Having principles is important in life. Not having any seems the desired state according to your video.

Make a choice then live by it. Your vid thinks this is undesirable.

I feel no need to prove that God exists. You ether believe or you don't. Anyone's lack of belief does not effect nor change my beliefs. I feel that as a spiritual being that he exists because the Holy Spirit spoke to me. This doesn't make me stupid, just lucky. Nothing I did caused this to happen....it just did and I accept it. It makes me no better then anyone else. Anyone who feels it does really hasn't been blessed with this gift because having this gift is a life changer. The fact that I know that God exists and that he has revealed it to me doesn't mean I can go through the rest of my life looking down on others who haven't received this gift. That's what many atheist and false Christians tend to do. I don't sneer at anyone for their beliefs and when someone sneers at me for mine I feel they haven't a clue where my beliefs come from.

I'm fairly moderate about politics, so I know all about the "constant state of confusion".

"Flawed black and white thinking" is just another way of saying false dichotomy. I believe he's right about that. There is middle ground between believing God, and not believing in any kind of god. Someone in the middle could disprove theistic claims about God, but still believe that it's possible there's some kind of higher power out there. That's where I fit in.

Belief is a personal thing that doesn't have to, or need to, follow logic or the scientific method. It's like debating over a favorite color.