Are you an atheist?

Are you an atheist?


  • Total voters
    351
Still waiting for Her (Its?) voice from above, to pontificate upon these weighty issues.

But this must be the Year of the Chicken, since nothing has emerged in these posts so far, nor on my cell phone, despite multiple encouragements.
 
In Denmark, one of the newly-elected members of parliament for the Anti-immigrant party has declared that she used to be a young Indian (Indian as in Native-American) boy in her previous life, that she's a clairvoyant and that she speaks with animals and spirits.

The above takes place in the 21 century, in a country where education is free. Then again, the new minister for education (correction: the nut is minister for science, can't make up my mind if that is better or worse) recently declared that God made the Earth, but had to retract some hasty statements about the physicist Niels Bohr being a believer.

Arthur C.Clarke, in his SF-novel The Last Theorem (can highly recommend it), entertains the thought of inoculation against the pestilence of religion. I'd wish ...
 
Last edited:
Blade,

In these United States it is destruction for the people who don't believe as the liberal does. You are included in that Doc. It really does not matter if it is right or wrong but rather how the liberal thinks it is.

How is it destruction to not believe as the liberal does? You certainly post that way, but I am still at a loss for the belief you claim. And you got caught slipping back into the religious right mindset that SCOTUS made law. I said it before but you can't get this FACT (and it IS a fact) they did not legislate. What they did was prevent someone else from unfairly legislating in violation of the equal rights amendment.

You have claimed to be an educated man but your words here on this forum don't seem to be consistent with that claim sometimes. When you get into this mindset of yours that can't get past the equal rights amendment, you speak like the dumbest smart guy I know. Blade, again I must remind you that your words are all most of us can see of you, and what we see isn't so nice.
 
Blade states
"It is a Sin in God's eyes and I will not accept it , Period (Matthew 19:4,6) "

As I understand it, and as quoted frequently in the links and references, the sin according to the bible is the act of sexual penetration by homosexual males, not being homosexual or even directly being married, but of course for the Christian marriage equates to sex, infact most religions seem to be sex mad, love , companionship and everything else that makes for a good marriage don't matter, just bonk away and have loads of kids that's what it's all about.

Brian
 
Blade states
"It is a Sin in God's eyes and I will not accept it , Period (Matthew 19:4,6) "

As I understand it, and as quoted frequently in the links and references, the sin according to the bible is the act of sexual penetration by homosexual males, not being homosexual or even directly being married, but of course for the Christian marriage equates to sex, infact most religions seem to be sex mad, love , companionship and everything else that makes for a good marriage don't matter, just bonk away and have loads of kids that's what it's all about.

Brian

Keep in mind, Brian, that despite Bladerunner's lies, Matthew 19:4-6 is about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage.

Divorce. That is the sin being referred to.
 
Blade states
"It is a Sin in God's eyes and I will not accept it , Period (Matthew 19:4,6) "

As I understand it, and as quoted frequently in the links and references, the sin according to the bible is the act of sexual penetration by homosexual males, not being homosexual or even directly being married, but of course for the Christian marriage equates to sex, infact most religions seem to be sex mad, love , companionship and everything else that makes for a good marriage don't matter, just bonk away and have loads of kids that's what it's all about.

Brian

Dauh! there is no harm or sin committed without sex. you are right but I do believe that a marriage without sex is no marriage at all.........
 
Blade,
How is it destruction to not believe as the liberal does? You certainly post that way, but I am still at a loss for the belief you claim. And you got caught slipping back into the religious right mindset that SCOTUS made law. I said it before but you can't get this FACT (and it IS a fact) they did not legislate. What they did was prevent someone else from unfairly legislating in violation of the equal rights amendment.

You have claimed to be an educated man but your words here on this forum don't seem to be consistent with that claim sometimes. When you get into this mindset of yours that can't get past the equal rights amendment, you speak like the dumbest smart guy I know. Blade, again I must remind you that your words are all most of us can see of you, and what we see isn't so nice.

Again, what ever suits your minds eye Doc....
 
The problem for me is I see God and the bible as a mechanism to manipulate people in to cowdowing to the will of others, Usually old men.

However, some of my most respected and very intelligent friends and associates are staunch believers.

I used to think that the possibility of a god was completely impossible and just a fantasy however I came to understand that the evoulution of the human race could very well end up with the development of a god like being.
So I'm on the fence really.

As to the validity of the bible, well it's self evident that it's a collection of old story's served up to impress and control the masses. In the past when it's message has conflicted with the goals of the old men it was rewritten. So quoting from it as if it was some sort of power wielding document is at best nieive.

There was until recently a program on TV on Sunday mornings called The Big Question. One was "Is God The Problem?"
During the program it became evident that it should have been " Is religion the problem" as an agnostic I'm damn certain it is.

No matter how far science takes us there could always be a god behind it, but not the god of the religions I know little about.

Brian
 
Dauh! there is no harm or sin committed without sex. you are right but I do believe that a marriage without sex is no marriage at all.........

And does this obsession also mean that if a couple stop having sex the marriage is over?

Brian
 
Keep in mind, Brian, that despite Bladerunner's lies, Matthew 19:4-6 is about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage.

Divorce. That is the sin being referred to.

And I see that with the usual love and tolerance the innocent party has to suffer the consequences as much as the guilty.

Brian
 
There was until recently a program on TV on Sunday mornings called The Big Question. One was "Is God The Problem?"
During the program it became evident that it should have been " Is religion the problem" as an agnostic I'm damn certain it is.

No matter how far science takes us there could always be a god behind it, but not the god of the religions I know little about.

Brian

Both of those "is God the Problem", "Is Religion the Problem" are right Brian. That is they are bad news for atheist and Agnostics.

You have to believe in God/Jesus and ask forgiveness for your sins. The religion you speak of is "Christianity' was started with Jesus roughly 2000 years ago in Judea along with his disciples.. the very man you need to ask forgiveness of. Both are real
Both offer man a way to have everlasting life. You do not have to be religious, join the church or minister to other people. All you have to do is believe,,,,The Choice I speak of so often. The religion (Christianity) is represented by the Holy Bible and give you a road map to everlasting life.
 
And does this obsession also mean that if a couple stop having sex the marriage is over?

Brian

Don't really understand you Brian..... I know a lot of marriages that probably have no sex involved in them.

if a married or otherwise same-sex couple does not have sex. That my friend would be up to Jesus. Only he will know what went in their bedroom or elsewhere.

Case Closed
 
And I see that with the usual love and tolerance the innocent party has to suffer the consequences as much as the guilty.

Brian

Brian: ??????/ Why would you suppose that.... Jesus will know if they are innocent or guilty. If you are referring to me causing them to suffer simply because I would not accept their marriage, Bull Shit? If you are referring to the Church for not marrying them ,within its halls, is causing them to suffer, again, Bull Shit?

As far as Matthew 19, 4,6. is concerned, Divorce was the question to his answer. Only I did not include the direct answer ,,,it would be best it you read it for your self,,,The whole chapter.

They have many other options.
 
It is pointless trying to have a discussion with Blade as he does not follow the thread of the discussion.

Brian
 
Again, what ever suits your minds eye Doc....

Blade, here is the problem. I actually want to think of you as a nice guy, well-meaning and reasonably intelligent. The difficulty is that I (and many others on the forum, given their responses that I have seen) find it difficult to deal with you because of what I see as religiously obsessive behavior. That obsession makes it difficult for us to have any fruitful discussions with you on subjects indirectly related to Biblical admonitions - because you won't consider that some of the Biblical stuff is just flat outdated and outmoded. Obsession tends to do that, and those who are obsessed never see it in themselves, only in others.

A more modern viewpoint on individual rights suggests that men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. If you compare that to the Bible, you see that the Bible suggests that the man is "lord and master" of his house, with explicit descriptions of how and when he should beat his wife when she does not agree with him. Issues like a man marrying his deceased brother's widow also come into play. Slavery is condoned in the Bible but not in more modern ways of thinking about human rights. Can you not see that the Bible's viewpoint is out of date? Philosophy of human rights has changed - but the Bible has not.

The problem, of course, is that you won't entertain the obsolescence of those parts of your "Good Book" because you fear what ELSE might be shown to be meaningless or outdated. And after that, your Good Book would no longer be so good for modern times. Of course, ANYTHING that stagnates tends to fall by the wayside anyway, but you can't see the truth of that concept because your Biblical obsession gets in the way.

I have to admit that it took me a long time to reach my current viewpoint. I was raised as Methodist and believed for a long time - but during a family crisis, I turned to the Bible for help - and found none. I looked for comfort - but there was none. I looked for answers - but they were sorely absent. The Bible did not stand up to critical scrutiny, and in that time of crisis, my own beliefs were not enough to prevent me from reading the Bible critically. It doesn't stand up to critical analysis. All the answers were of the form, "We are not meant to know the mind of God" (or the plans, intentions, etc.) Translation: I can't tell you why something bad happened and don't think I will ever know why.

That family crisis was when I found that my thinking needed to evolve to match modern times and my then-current reality. That was when I realized it was time to let go of that old way of thinking. It was holding me back from being my own person.

Believe it or not, some Buddhism (particularly but not exclusively) of the Zen variety was most helpful. Don't ask "WHY" on cosmic questions because such things don't need a reason. They just are what they are, one with their own nature.

Trust me this much - it was not an easy transition to let go of Methodism. I had to learn to forgive a lot of people for propagating the lies of religion, and the key to that forgiveness was the realization that they had not seen through the lies themselves, so were only repeating what they had been taught as children. It is for that reason that I don't hate you, Blade. You are simply repeating what you were told without critically reviewing it first. And for that I can forgive you, for I have been there myself.
 
That's a big reason that I describe myself as a Christian Agnostic. I don't know if a God exists, nor do I *CARE*. What's important to me is that the morality attributed to Jesus - not the Old Testament, not Paul's BS, but "Jesus said..." - strikes me as an excellent guide for living: Help the poor, the needy, and those less fortunate than yourself. Love everyone (yeah, my biggest weakness is right there). Be not proud.

As for the rest? The first half of the book is a collected oral history of bronze-age tribesmen who, by their own tales, were some of the most brutal, genocidal bastards to ever walk the sands of the Middle East. The second half is a mix of tales and second-hand accounts of a roving preacher, ostensibly named Yeshua, who claimed to be the Son of God, but these tales and accounts were all committed to paper decades and even a century after the events they claim to chronicle. Not to mention that Paul comes across as an egotistical, bigoted, misogynistic ass.

It never fails to amaze me just how so many people call themselves Christian, and yet go so far out of their way to act precisely OPPOSITE the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Oh, and Doc:
Don't ask "WHY" on cosmic questions because such things don't need a reason. They just are what they are, one with their own nature.
Strangely enough, J. Michael Straczynski put this rather complex thought very well on an episode of Babylon 5. One of his characters said:
I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.
When that line was said, I just stopped, thought for a second, and then said, "You know, he's right."
 
The problem for me is I see God and the bible as a mechanism to manipulate people in to cowdowing to the will of others, Usually old men. However, some of my most respected and very intelligent friends and associates are staunch believers.
Used by God or Man ........Man is very corrupt, God is not.........Your on the outside looking in Uncle Gizmo


I used to think that the possibility of a god was completely impossible and just a fantasy however I came to understand that the evoulution of the human race could very well end up with the development of a god like being.
So I'm on the fence really..
Who made up the worldview of Post modernism that speaks of evolution that substitutes for the creator. MAN


As to the validity of the bible, well it's self evident that it's a collection of old story's served up to impress and control the masses. In the past when it's message has conflicted with the goals of the old men it was rewritten. So quoting from it as if it was some sort of power wielding document is at best nieive.
The Tora is a collection of first five books written by Moses himself as given to him by God, what some 3000 years ago. The you have 34 more books in the Old Testament where the author was years and miles away from each other, with no Internet or Published books, YET,,,,,, they some how talk about what God said to them referencing other authors. In a illiterate society with only a few people actually being able to read and write, I am very surprised that you come to that conclusion.

The choice is "everlasting Death or as you atheist say--Poof and you gone---no more" or Everlasting Life" It is your choice Uncle Giazmo. Hope you make a good one.
 
I very much doubt that Blade will even acknowledge Doc's post (#5246) because he is like a child shouting gibberish lest he hears something intelligent that contradicts his precious notion of "eternal life" through subservience to the anachronism that is the Bible.

Underneath he is utterly terrified that it could all be a hoax, which of course it is.
 
It never fails to amaze me just how so many people call themselves Christian, and yet go so far out of their way to act precisely OPPOSITE the teachings attributed to Jesus.

One of my favourite's is the bizarre notion of a "Christmas Ham" because nowhere does Christ overturn the OT prohibition on having anything to do with pigs.

Early Christians turned a blind eye to that one because Romans were particularly partial to eating pig meat and they knew they would not get anywhere by prohibiting it.

It is called Political Expediency.

Tell us Blade, do you eat ham?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom