ax, I have been around on this one enough to no longer care. I didnt ask to be born, i dont believe in reincarnation, and when I die, I will be decomposting in a field somewhere.
everything else, is unproven faith, hope, and invention. Little of which i have the depth nor breadth to ponder nor worry about.
What is hell? The abscence of God. And since man has free will and doesnt interfere - welcome to hell.
Man created the myth of god because the punishments of chopping off arms and slicing of achilles tendons no longer had an affect of maintaining civil order. So the Ye Hath best behave rule book is out, and you will notice that damn near every society has a 'book'.
IF God is truly all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, then He/it/she/them/they are indeed a cruel being indeed, like the kid with the magnifying glass on the ant hill.
and in the end, there is no proof, i dont care about the 'miracle' of life- I am snipped, I dont care about the never ending eternity, the DNR aint for decoration on the wall.
with all luck I am out of here in twenty and in a hundred years, there will be no trace of it at all. It is indeed for me a grand failed experiment.
>>> By no means do I wish to silence anyone and I would hope my posts convey that.
In my view, your posts convey a deep disdain for God, the Bible, and Christianity. Some of your posts reveal an eagerness to embrace most any argument so long as it supports your disdainful views. Your bogus quote above mis-attributed to Thomas Jefferson is yet another unfortunate example. Have you no shame? How many falsehoods must you be seen to employ before stepping back and gaining some integrity in your debating and research on the issue? In another case you quoted a story in the bible about a pagan princess who was musing about her pagan king committing rape, fornication and adultery, but you asserted that God was condoning such behavior, the behavior of a pagan enemy of Israel. In another case you quoted fraudulent scripture that had substituted the word "rape" in place of "intercourse", totally changing the meaning. I should allow that point of view unfettered freedom on BadWeB? I cannot disagree more strongly.
>>> "If it's fair for someone to voice an opinion FOR god then it's fair for someone to voice an opinion AGAINST god... "
As long as your opinion is offered thoughtfully and with respect, not a screed of cut and paste from God-haters.com full of falsehood and misrepresentation (see above for examples).
So if you speak admirably of your father or your son, using your logic I should be allowed to denigrate them here on BadWeB. Does that sound okay to you? Christians view God as our creator, our "father who art in heaven", and Jesus as our redeemer, God manifest in the flesh come to free us from sin. In short, he's someone we really like, respect, and hold very very dear.
Then comes you, saying he's a mass murderer who lies and condones rape, child abuse and all manner of really vile hateful stuff much of it based on misreading or outright falsehood. You think that passes as thoughtful or a mere "point of view"? You have poor social skills.
>>> I'm merely pointing out that if it is permitted for a person to make a post promoting, or even just discussing, religion then any and all viewpoints on that topic need to be permitted and not threatened with censorship.
"any and all viewpoints on that topic need to be permitted"?
Sorry, no. Falsehood and deeply insulting disdainful screed is not something I need to allow here. Like I said, go create your own web site and run it how you like. Besides Dave, I think we know your view all too well. You are an atheist, one who rejects God, disbelieves there is a God. You hate the idea of God's existence, the Bible and what it stands for, and Christianity. You think religion is the worst scourge ever visited upon humanity and are out to convince anyone who will listen of your way of seeing things. That about sum it up?
Again, I invested a significant amount of time to create, as you originally suggested, a special topic with numerous subtopics to address many of your points. If you are interested in taking that up in that forum, that's fine with me. Other than that, no. The reason I've made that decision is that so much of what you presented is inaccurate or blatantly false. I don't have time to follow you around rebutting the myriad of cut and paste screeds from your God-haters web sites. If you want to present your own thoughts and analysis on a specific issue, you have the forum I created to do so. That said, if you simply add to a discussion and avoid the falsehood and insulting inflammatory declarations, and cut-and-paste screeds, there's no problem.
I enjoy good debate. Good debate requires a focus on a specific issue and thoughtful presentation of evidence, factual information. And I really want to help you see truth, whatever it may be.
Delta,
I have a lot of respect for Jefferson. He had a LOT of respect for the teachings of Jesus.
I don't hold up Jefferson as God as some seem want to do, quoting him as though infallible in all his views. He was a man, and flawed all of us are to some extent or another. He was dead on in his views of liberty and the divine source of our unalienable rights. He was a poor scholar when it came to the Bible or Christianity, partly due to the influence of some popular deists of the day. He attended church in the halls of congress and at home in Charlottesville, VA.
>>> if the billboard saying that religion is a scam (is) a huge insult would a billboard saying that politicians are scam artists or check advance stores are scams or snake oil is a scam be an insult?
To some absolutely, those who hold those things dear. To insult someone requires that you dengrate something which they hold as dear, something profound or important to them. For most, your secular examples don't qualify, thus for most no insult is perceived. Another thing you are ignoring is the population factor. Do billions of people hold very dear the notion of loving benevolent altruistic politicians, check advance stores, or snake oil? No, they don't. Social skills are important. A billboard professing that religion is a scam doesn't offend me at all unless it is on my property. Then I'd take it down and not be offended any more.
>>> yes generalizations are being made but at what point does the line be drawn between informing and insulting?
No one is informed by mere anonymous rhetoric. To be informed requires either a respected credible author, or convincing credible supporting evidence, factual information. The line is crossed by the intent of the author, or by the integrity of the "information". If the intent is to be insulting, the line has been crossed. If the "information" lacks integrity, and offends folks, the line has been crossed. If the tone is unnecessarilly mean, hateful, or disdainful, the line is crossed. Social skills matter.
Dale,
>>> 2. If God is omniscient then he knows your past present and future taking away the third level of evil which is free will.
That contains a false conclusion. God knowing past present and future does not in any way preclude our free will.
It simply means God knows. That's all.
>>> It is a philosophical argument with a logic based set of principles that has been found to be sound and valid.
By those who support it you mean. I sure don't. I'm not even sure it accurately characterizes God. Either way, respected scholars disagree.
Brian,
>>> IF God is truly all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, then He/it/she/them/they are indeed a cruel being indeed, like the kid with the magnifying glass on the ant hill.
By "cruel" you mean to say that God does not appear to be a loving God in your view. Why would you say that?
>>> like the kid with the magnifying glass on the ant hill.
You see God as indiscriminately killing for no reason other than amusement?
There's no possible bigger picture scenario that may come into play?
Is our immune system cruel when it attacks and kills the entities within us that threaten to destroy the entire body?
Some things to ponder. It's difficult to step outside of ourselves and our own limited view of the world. And there is that whole free will deal to consider.
What I find surprising is the prevalence of ignorance among those like Racerx and Dave who are disdainful towards the faith of others (re "you jebus freeks" and "gawd"). I mean you'd think if you were going to reject the idea of God or Christianity, you'd at least try to understand what it's really all about. It seems like I exercise magnitudes more due-diligence just in my grocery shopping than do some concerning God and/or Christianity.
Racerx posted a video on the previous page of "Atheist Meets God". It was very comical. I laughed out loud at it. But if that is really the view that some atheists have of the nature of God and Christianity and is the reason why they reject it, then it's easy to see why. I would too.
Seek truth.
Hint: God isn't about mere lip service. Believing what Jesus said is more than just stating so.
Example to ponder:
One person likes to brag about being a vegetarian. But he eats pizza with cheese and peperoni, three egg omelets, drinks cow's milk, and partakes of the occasional shellfish banquet and chicken soup.
Another person makes no such claims; she just eats grains, fruits, nuts, vegetables, and their products.
Which is the "better" vegetarian?
Which one best embodies vegetarianism?
"I was a good person, I worked at the homeless shelter..."
If you refuse to be born of the spirit, how may you enjoy a spiritual existence?
Hmmmm....
Then there's the problem in America of justifying our "unalienable rights" absent God. The very founding of our nation depended upon recognition of God and divine providence.
Did you notice which point of view instigated the diversion?
As in virtually ALL such cases here on BadWeB, those who are hostile to religion are the ones invoking it. Why don't they just shut up about it? Beats me!
Blake- no really didn't pay attention. As I skimmed down the entries and started seeing "God, values, beliefs," and whatever else had nothing to do with OPs' video, I quickly knew where this thread was heading. My views are just that, my views. Wish so many would understand that. So now I have been sucked in. It's going to be 50 degrees out today, I'm gonna go ride, ya'll have fun.
It's hard to say that it's entirely off topic to bring up religion in a thread entitled as this one and based on a video preaching (very creepily) religious reverence for motorcycle racing.
It's supposed to get to the '50s here, but it's still freezing right now.
It's funny, I really had no idea it would end up like this. I posted the title as a light-hearted jab at the epic multi-thread religion argument that was up not long ago.
I thought the video was cool, that is all. I didn't think it was "hostile" to religion. I didn't even thing it's really "religious." It's a hyperbole to convey the passion that some people have about riding to the limit and doing it on the track. This same video is posted on two other forums that I frequent and neither has had this kind of reaction to it. Most just say "cool video" or mention something they like about riding on the track. No one decided to take it seriously enough to start a damn debate.
The first comment here was someone who liked the video ;"now that's a church i'd go to!" doesn't sound really hostile to religion. Even though he's engaged in some religious debates before, it doesn't sound like he was trolling for a religious argument. Just sounded like he like the video
But the next comment; "you may need a fire suit if you don't make it to church" seems to be where the trolling started. Maybe it was entirely meant as a joke but that's where the argument started.... not by someone being hostile to religion. Yeah maybe if no one had hadn't replied to that comment the thread wouldn't have veered off course but I think in this case the religious side threw the first stone.... albeit a small stone.
Ken's comment seems pure jest to me, preceded by a good-natured "LOL". The next one was uncalled for and is what kicked of the dreaded debate. That's how I see it anyway. I can see your point too.
>>> 2. If God is omniscient then he knows your past present and future taking away the third level of evil which is free will.
That contains a false conclusion. God knowing past present and future does not in any way preclude our free will.
It simply means God knows. That's all.
>>> It is a philosophical argument with a logic based set of principles that has been found to be sound and valid.
By those who support it you mean. I sure don't. I'm not even sure it accurately characterizes God. Either way, respected scholars disagree.
That is the premise, not a conclusion. It is a debate that has been back and forth for years between hard and soft determinists and those that are on the free will side of the argument. Don't mistake, please, the "valid and sound" for more than what it is. The argument is valid as it is in the correct logical form. Modus Ponens for the the "part" of it, but the logical proof for that argument is long and covers modus tolens, modus ponens, quantified chain argument, juxtaposition and many more, and sound as it logically follows to the end of the argument with a conclusion that is again, logically sound. Of course I posted the extremely condensed version of that argument Blake. I am not an advocate one way or the other, just trying to expand on what the guy posted earlier was on to but did not articulate fully.
The scholars link you posted was interesting but not related to the William Blake argument, thanks though interesting.
One of my favorite books is "divine nobodies" (subtitled, "shedding religion to find God) by Jim Palmer.
And I personally have always felt that my "religion" is between me and my "God" for the most part. If someone values my opinion enough to sincerely ask me about my faith then I will share my thoughts and life experiences with them.
on a side note...in the video "six feet under - T.N.T." that Wolf posted on the first page of this thread. I watched it a couple of times and I think, at the .58 second mark, the guy in the front row with the orange and black shirt and the white hat is 86129Squids.
My guess is that he mostly "likes" what the guy wrote:
quote:
For those who ride their Buells to the edge, 20min at a time. Can't wait to get my 1125CR back on the track! Thank you Erik for such an awesome machine.
Someone mentioned scientology which raises another interesting double standard...
I think most people consider scientology a bit wacky because of the strange alien story etc. Many others consider mormonism just as absurd because of the super underwear and the magic hat.
The bible talks about a guy living inside a fish and another guy who put two of every animal in the world on a boat, burning bush, etc etc... point being there are plenty of strange stories in there as well.
Why should christianity warrant any additional respect? From a purely objective point of view a god talking through a magic hat isn't much different than a god talking through a burning bush is it?
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 09:35 am:
Moxnix;
Would you not agree that every other religion truly believes that 'they' are the chosen ones as well? They may have based that belief on a different document, prophet or 'miracle' of some kind but the belief would be no different than your belief in words from an ancient book yes?
My basic point is that this point of view where people hold this sentiment;
'we, the church of abc, are right and true in our beliefs and all of you other religions are wrong'
tends to lead to intolerance and eventually violence.
Some countries and faiths take this to higher extremes than others but you get the idea...
