If God did not exist

[oldfart]

If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion.

You are setting up a common argument, but one that is almost always inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. Religions are not separable from their practitioners. By raising this argument, you cannot any point make the argument that Christians, or any other group associated with the religion you are trying to promote do good things or are good people. By your argument, it is irrelevant. It is not the religion which is good, it is the people. You cannot claim the good acts for a deity and blame the bad acts on the followers. Do you wish to reconsider this position?

Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will.

Have your ever heard of the term "cults"? Does "Jonestown" ring a bell? Religions, including Christianity have a history of holding people against their will and even killing them in the name of God. Or do you just hold fast to that argument that religions have nothing to do with the actions of those who practice them?

Anyone with common sense can understand that religion is used as a scapegoat by many, including you, to tack the blame on for everything that goes wrong in society. It's also used by those who do evil to gain power, control, and influence over people.

Yes religion is often misused. At its heart, Western religion is a system of social control based on fear. If you believe in accountability, it is the responsibility of each religious organization to discipline itself to minimize these abuses. Who it is reasonable to hold accountable is a question of fact, and it is irresponsible to scapegoat a group for actions they have no control over. It is also irresponsible to dismiss abuses with the kind of blanket denials you are making.

To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant.

"claimed to be Christians"? You are now the judge of who is a Christian? If someone behaves badly, Jim Jones for instance, you just decide that he is not a "real Christian" and therefore you don't have to deal with the ethical problems they create? It must be nice to have such convenient Christian ethics where the religion is never responsible for addressing abuses within its ranks.

you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart. Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.

Oh come on! I have not read such a load of self-serving sanctimonious drivel in years! You now know what is in everyone's heart, and suddenly religion gets a free pass. I hope you believe in a merciful god instead of a just one. Honestly, the arguments you raise get students expelled from seminaries every year, they are the marks of someone who is not temperamentally suited to a religious calling. Your arguments are simply disgusting and an insult to any faith tradition worthy of the status.

 

[daws101]

Chritianity HAS imposed it's will? Not IS imposing its will?? No, people, human beings, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.

No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed his will to the point where millions died. The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means. You're clueless.

again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
when we move back to southern California my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease (BOM & the bible).
you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..

If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion. Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will. Anyone with common sense can understand that religion is used as a scapegoat by many, including you, to tack the blame on for everything that goes wrong in society. It's also used by those who do evil to gain power, control, and influence over people. To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant. All you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart. Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.

URL=http://s1353.photobucket.com/user/brian_dawson1/media/shit/Waaambulance_zps3a43ef50.jpg.html]

[/URL]

 

[daws101]

I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.

Defintion: Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor.

I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions. I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.

no actual evidence is not a preponderance of evidence.

Carl Sagan was only 62 years old when he died. So what exactly did his scientific knowledge of evolution and rejection of God gain him?

lol!
he gained knowledge..but again you're making assumption!

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/xOrgLj9lOwk]Monty Python-Holy Hand Grenade - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Newby]

If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion.

You are setting up a common argument, but one that is almost always inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. Religions are not separable from their practitioners. By raising this argument, you cannot any point make the argument that Christians, or any other group associated with the religion you are trying to promote do good things or are good people. By your argument, it is irrelevant. It is not the religion which is good, it is the people. You cannot claim the good acts for a deity and blame the bad acts on the followers. Do you wish to reconsider this position?

No, I don't wish to reconsider my opinoin because I do not use scapegoats to explain away behavior, or as a crutch to try to make a point. Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be? I've never personally made the statement that people outside of relgion couldn't be 'good people', there are a lot of 'good' people who do 'good' things that aren't christians or follow any other religious doctrine. I haven't ever claimed good acts for 'a deity' either, so putting words into my mouth doesn't made for a very good rebuttal. Your argument here just illustrates how you do not understand the Christian religion.

Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will.

Have your ever heard of the term "cults"? Does "Jonestown" ring a bell? Religions, including Christianity have a history of holding people against their will and even killing them in the name of God. Or do you just hold fast to that argument that religions have nothing to do with the actions of those who practice them?

Yes religion is often misused. At its heart, Western religion is a system of social control based on fear. If you believe in accountability, it is the responsibility of each religious organization to discipline itself to minimize these abuses. Who it is reasonable to hold accountable is a question of fact, and it is irresponsible to scapegoat a group for actions they have no control over. It is also irresponsible to dismiss abuses with the kind of blanket denials you are making.

Not sure what your point is in referring to a 'cult'? People join 'cults', religious or otherwise, and base their beliefs of their own free will. Otherwise, it's called enslavement, and enslavement has been abolished for over 150 years last I checked. 'Religions and Christianity have a history of enslavement and murder'... No, people have a history of enslavement and murder and will use whatever is conveniently available to control the masses. Religions are not evil, perhaps people who practice them, use them for ill gain, or establish them for use of evil, are the ones who are evil.

That's how you apparently view religion, as a 'system of social control, based on fear', and as I clearly pointed out in my prior post, it most certainly has been used that way by many people throughout history. Unfortunately, people do not define Christianity as they wish, only Christ defined it. If a person or a group is truly following the path of Christ, fear is not used, force is not used, and discipline goes without question.

To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant.

"claimed to be Christians"? You are now the judge of who is a Christian? If someone behaves badly, Jim Jones for instance, you just decide that he is not a "real Christian" and therefore you don't have to deal with the ethical problems they create? It must be nice to have such convenient Christian ethics where the religion is never responsible for addressing abuses within its ranks.

I'm not judging anyone. God gave me intelligence and common sense to use to discern between good and evil. Evil is not associated with God, anyone who does evil deeds is not a follower of God. If you want to take their word for it that they are, and then condemn God for what they did, their evil acts done of their own free will, then that's certainly your perogative. And I don't have to deal with any 'unethical problems' that another christian might create, they have to deal with that on their own, and if they truly have a relationship with God, then they have to deal with that as well. Being a follower of Christ is not a team sport, it's an individual endeavor, which most of you who bash christianity just don't seem to get.

you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart. Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.

Oh come on! I have not read such a load of self-serving sanctimonious drivel in years! You now know what is in everyone's heart, and suddenly religion gets a free pass. I hope you believe in a merciful god instead of a just one. Honestly, the arguments you raise get students expelled from seminaries every year, they are the marks of someone who is not temperamentally suited to a religious calling. Your arguments are simply disgusting and an insult to any faith tradition worthy of the status.

A person's actions define who and what they are, are you suggesting otherwise? 'Religion' doesn't get a 'free pass', that's where you go wrong in your thinking. Every individual will have to answer for their actions, it's not going to matter what 'religion' you belonged too, or what church you went too, what's going to matter is that you showed your faith and your love in Christ through the deeds that you did. There is a lot of argument about 'faith' and 'deeds', and which saves you, but they're inseparable. If you have faith, then the deeds follow without effort, deeds without the faith are great, but are meaningless without the faith in the end.

You can insult my arguments all you like, and insinuate that my 'temperment is not suited to a religiious calling', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, but it just shows a lack of maturity and a lack of confidence in your own arguement to lower yourself to such a level.

 

[orogenicman]

Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?

What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!

 

[Newby]

Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?

What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!

You're totally off the subject in regards to context...

 

[orogenicman]

Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?

What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!

You're totally off the subject in regards to context...

Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.

 

[daws101]

What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!

You're totally off the subject in regards to context...

Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.

context, he don't need no stinkin' context!

 

[Newby]

What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!

You're totally off the subject in regards to context...

Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.

The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.

 

[koshergrl]

It's the very definition of bigotry, and ignorance. Not only do they have a poor understanding of the religion, they have a poor understanding of the bible, and they completely misconstrue the motivation and the development that people of God experience. Most anti-Christians think that because they sneer at the bible and have no interest in seeking truth in it, or applying it to their life, or increasing and improving their relationship with god....that all people who claim to be walking that path are LIARS, and simply following along with a religion because they're afraid of hellfire. It isn't that at all. It's about being GOOD for the sake of being Good, and for the sake of pleasing God, whom we LOVE. Most people don't do good things for their spouses because they're afraid of them. They don't strive to excel at their jobs or at parenthood because they're afraid of being fired, or being hated...they do it because they want to do the right thing, because they want to be an example to others, because they want to earn the trust and love of their children and the people they love and admire. And for some reason, anti-Christians just can't get it through their heads that it's the same with religion, and faith. We don't study the bible and work on our inner and outer selves because we're afraid. We do it because we admire God and want to follow him. We want others to follow him too...because we know the joy it brings to every day life, because we understand the improvements it believes it all aspects of living, because we value the love we find in and through our Savior, and because we want everybody to join in that. It's about experiencing and sharing joy. And for some reason, they think that shows weakness on our part...and for some reason, they think it's an EASY thing to do.

Trust me, it isn't.

 

[koshergrl]

The longer I work at being a better Christian, the more thought I put into it and the more time I spend in the word studying it, the more I want to improve myself, to become a more perfect vessel. That is not fear. It's love, and knowledge that the experience of joy brings (the word brings joy. That's all there is to it. If you read it with an open heart and a desire to improve yourself and grow closer to God, it's nothing but pure joy). I can see the difference between my life now and the life I lead before I took it to heart and really began to work on my walk, and to consider the deeper concepts of the bible...self sacrifice, inner strength, and above all the commitment to contanstly move FORWARD in my walk, and to APPLY the lessons learned within the word..on a day by day basis. It has taken a long time, but I see benefit and improvement daily...and where i see it most is in the character growth and happiness in my FAMILY. It is a miraculous thing, it is not of man (I've been around man enough to distinguish the difference...I was not raised in a Christian household). The things I have experienced and witnessed are not of man, except through the grace and intervention of God. I'm not a stupid or mystical woman, but I will give credit where credit is due. And credit is due to God. And it breaks my heart that people think they are doing a good thing when they try to destroy that.

 

[Steven_R]

That's a pretty wide brush you're painting with. Just because I'm an agnostic, doesn't mean I can't get something out of the Bible. It's chockfull of wonderful life lessons, but I see no proof of a God to back it up. It's just a good book, akin to Aesop's Fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.

 

[orogenicman]

You're totally off the subject in regards to context...

Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.

The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.

The comment that I responded to was this:

"Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners". It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion. That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above. Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact. Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think? Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.

 

[Newby]

Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.

The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.

The comment that I responded to was this:

"Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners". It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion. That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above. Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact. Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think? Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.

It might help to read what it was in response too.

 

[orogenicman]

The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.

The comment that I responded to was this:

"Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners". It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion. That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above. Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact. Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think? Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.

It might help to read what it was in response too.

If you didn't mean to say that "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners", then why did you say it?

 

[daws101]

I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.

what point? again you yammer on about what it is to be christian and the suffering you volunteered for.yes you did and do say ,if only by inference that if someone is not a christian they know nothing about it.
this is self serving braggadocio and pretentiousness at it finest, besides being a steaming pile.

 

[koshergrl]

Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.

The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.

so without the cloak of you religion you're just an asshole as opposed to with your religion you're a christian asshole?

Look, another completely irrelevant post, with absolutely no connection to the subject matter.

Reported for trolling and for posting subject matter that in no way shape or form references the conversation.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.

what point? again you yammer on about what it is to be christian and the suffering you volunteered for.yes you did and do say ,if only by inference that if someone is not a christian they know nothing about it.
this is self serving braggadocio and pretentiousness at it finest, besides being a steaming pile.

If only you know what you were talking about, maybe you could make yourself understood, and actually be a part of an adult conversation.

Until then, sorry, irrelevant, poorly constructed, and completely vapid post that has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread.