Printable View
Hello everyone, I would like to have a friendly discussion. I am a Christian and would like to ask some questions.
1. If God does exist is there anything you would ask him?
2. As an atheist do you believe morals are absolutes or are they subjective? Why?
3. Does your outlook on Christianity come from what you observe Christians doing?
4. What do you dislike most about religion?
Can you elaborate on #2? The question is not clear to me.
Are you asking about moral relativism?
Yes, I am asking the views of moral relativism and why you take this stance, if you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
1. -----
2. I am not sure of the answer you want for this; I do not believe in moral relativism per se, as support of the whole theory. The problem with moral objectivity is that it almost always means forcing one set of morals on a whole society. That in itself is immoral. I believe that morals are individual decisions on how one should behave; Those morals can be shaped by any number of things.
It is difficult to provide an answer, because I am not religious, therefore not a moral objectivist. But that does not have to mean I believe in moral relativism. I believe that there are rights and wrongs, but it is an individual decision to determine what is right or wrong.
Because to force morals on another is immoral in itself.
3. My outlook on Christianty is formed by many different pieces. My views are formed on a combination of the history of the religion, scientific evidence, and how Christians act in society.
4. Why do I have to dislike religion to be an athetist? I have no hatred for no other religion, I do not dislike a certain set because of their religious views. I feel that individuals are trying to make a whole set of people fall into line with a moral and ethical ideology based on their religion. To be more clear, I feel that individuals who use their religious beliefs to make political decisions and suggestions that affect society as a whole are morally wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
If it is an individuals decision to determine what right and wrong are does this mean thatmorals in essence would be determined by the persons acting or reacting? What measuring stick would be in place to hold the person accountable?
What part of the history of Christianity do you think has influenced you in a negative way? Why would you take the word of Science or evolution theory over God? Have I missed it? Missed where Science has disproven God and creation? I am unaware that htis has happened.
Do you hold God accountable for the actions of others? We cannot judge a person based on how someone else acts can we? Even though God does not change, people do.
I do not think any views your views, or my views should be forced on anyone. Every person alive has the right to make their own decisions, but a society and it's leadership does what they feel is best for all people. Can you give some examples of decisions you have observed that would indicate that they were influenced by a religious belief.
I gain my morals and ethics from God's Word, but by no means am I indicating that everyone has to do this. God says to choose this day who we will serve. Two important details in that saying, one being we have a choice and the other being we are not forced to accept or adhere to his ways.:)
I believe there are a certain set of rights and wrongs that most all people are born with at birth, that humans are inherently good. That humans are born with a conscience that determines what is right and wrong on a very basic level. After that, morals are determined by many other factors, environment, social situation, heritage, etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
The history of Christianity is filled with examples of people being murdered for being heretic. For not being Christian. How can that not have a negative connotation to a religion?
No one has disproven the existence of an omnipotent being. But science has been able to give us small clues about human existence and the evolution of man. I choose to take the word of science because science is a fact-based decision. Religion is an emotional decision, a matter of blind faith and belief in something that cannot be proven.
I choose to side with facts and truths over speculation and faith.
I do not hold an omnipotent being to a standard because I do not believe in the existence of a higher being.
The easiest example is homosexuality legislation, which is directly related to the Christian ideology that homosexuality is not natural, and therefore should not be allowed to be seen by the government as married individuals, therefore not being able to receive the same government benefits as married people.
There has been legislation in the last few years to advance the situation of homosexuals, but the point that there is still legislation against a set of people because it is viewed as wrong by a religious organization is proof that religion influences politics. Court rulings on obscenity and pornography are more proof, the ideal that certain acts should not be allowed because they are immoral is deeply rooted in religious connotation.
Actually studies show that it is the opposite, we aquire traits and characteristics. From adolesence to adulthood we aquire learned traits. Do you think people are born racist? You and I both know they are not, it is learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
What you call the history of Christianity is misleading for this reason, What we must consider is this, Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. It is easy to distinguish between true beleivers and those who are not.
What small clues from evolution are you talking about? We have no tranitional fossils, besides fossils in the science community cannot be used as evidence to evolution. The Big Bang is only a theory that attempts to explain away creation, that is clearly seen to be the motive, especially after studying the history of Darwinism.
Homosexuality is not normal human behavior and Science supports this. It is considerd abnormal behavior. Do you realize that a very small percentage of people in this world interact in this lifestyle? I am not using this as evidence, but the majority of the population rejects this lifestyle for a reason. Are you saying it is natural for a person of the same sex to desire each other? Rememeber Science has went on record as saying homosexuals are not born gay, therfore it has to be a learned trait.
As a whole we are not saying they cannot be homosexual, we are saying they are not bringing into marriage, a marriage that from history shows it is between a man and a woman. I know atheists that are against this lifestyle so the theory that only religious people think this way cannot be true.
Do you think porn is a good influence on anyone, especially children? Do you feel like it demoralizes women?:)
We acquire almost all morals in early life and adolescence, but I do believe that at birth, most people know a general right and wrong, the conscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
I am talking about the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the period in time that Christianity ruled most of the modern world, and people were MURDERED for believing in science or speaking out against the church.
You did an nice job of TOTALLY bypassing my question. Answer me this; was it okay for historical Christians to murder those who did not share their beliefs? Was it okay to murder people who refused to convert?
Your book does not even mention dinosaurs, most deny their existence. Do you deny that dinosaurs existed?
Lame way to try and justify your hate. Black people for the longest time were viewed as abnormal, is that okay? No.
It is NOT okay to discriminate against a set of people. To deny homosexuals rights has NOTHING to do with science or FACTS. It is purely about Christian beliefs on it. And you are not quoting leading research factually. There are factors that can make people born gay, such as an excess of prenatal estrogen. Also, the scientific community has stated that homosexuals feel no choice, they have no say in how they feel. Therefore, its nothing to do with being different, it has everything to do with being a sin in Christian religion.
I think repressing sexuality leads to numerous problems that occur that could be solved by being more open and honest about sex.
Do you believe in abstinence?
Porn is only degrading to those who choose to view it that way. Those woman choose to make their living that way, they make their money by having sex. How can that be degrading? Shoot if I could make a living having sex with beautiful women all day, I would be there ASAP
You did an nice job of TOTALLY bypassing my question. Answer me this; was it okay for historical Christians to murder those who did not share their beliefs? Was it okay to murder people who refused to convert?
** I know this wasn't directed at me but I will answer with my opinion. I think that it is wrong to murder people for their beliefs or lack thereof.
I would not want to be murdered for my beliefs as I am sure no one else would want to be murdered for theirs.
Your book does not even mention dinosaurs, most deny their existence. Do you deny that dinosaurs existed?
** I believe dinosaurs existed.
It is NOT okay to discriminate against a set of people. To deny homosexuals rights has NOTHING to do with science or FACTS. It is purely about Christian beliefs on it. And you are not quoting leading research factually. There are factors that can make people born gay, such as an excess of prenatal estrogen. Also, the scientific community has stated that homosexuals feel no choice, they have no say in how they feel. Therefore, its nothing to do with being different, it has everything to do with being a sin in Christian religion.
** While I don't believe that people are born gay and I believe that it is a sin, I do NOT discriminate against anyone. Discrimination is wrong is any case. I have known some Homosexuals and am just as friendly with them as I would be anyone else because they are people too just like you and I. We were all born with free will and what you do with that is your choice. I don't like it when people discriminate against Christians so I wouldn't want to do that to them. I try to practice the "Do unto others" concept.
I think repressing sexuality leads to numerous problems that occur that could be solved by being more open and honest about sex.
Do you believe in abstinence?
** I didn't believe in abstinence as a teen :) but I now believe that ALL teens should practice it.
Actually SOME teens that end up pregnant end up being better mothers than those who wait until they are in their late 20's to 30's.
As for the porn, I am gonna leave that question alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo99
Historical Christians? It would be better if you said historical religious people wouldn't it? I understand that they may have claimed to be Christians, but clearly they did not exibit the characteristics that would point to them being a Bible Christian.
Murdering someone for thier unbelief or refusing to convert is never okay and God does not think so either. Can you swear to it that God motivated them to do that? Dino's did exist and I am sure God is aware of that since he created them. If evidence was found that Dino's and humans walked together would this destroy the theory of evolution?
Denying homosexuals rights goes much deeper than just being a religious view, there are secular people as well that do not see this as being a good example to teach our younger generation. I know this is what the homosexual community and the atheists like to blame it on, but in reality secular people feel the same way.
Do you think it is discriminating just because we do not condone a homosexual lifestyle? We are not hatin on them or going to their houses and breaking their relationships up. We only stand united and say we will not allow this, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and it does not send a good meassage ot the little eyes that will be on them.
Historical Christians? It would be better if you said historical religious people wouldn't it? I understand that they may have claimed to be Christians, but clearly they did not exibit the characteristics that would point to them being a Bible Christian.
** I copied and pasted the question. Many proclaim to be Christians and who are we to say they aren't. I believe that is between God and that person. Christians are not perfect, I know I am certainly not. We do not know that person's heart or their relationship with God. Christians sin and fall everyday, the best we can do is repent and try to do the right thing again.
Murdering someone for thier unbelief or refusing to convert is never okay and God does not think so either. Can you swear to it that God motivated them to do that?
**Umm.. No, I can not swear that God makes anyone do anything. I think that is a dangerous road to go down.
Do you think it is discriminating just because we do not condone a homosexual lifestyle?
** I don't condone a homosexual lifestyle as a personal choice for me and while I may not agree with what a homosexual person may or may not be doing it is their life. Not mine. I have to answer for what I do just as well as everyone else has to answer for what they do.
I am sure that if you have read plenty of the posts on this forum that you would see that I am a Christian..
"I am not what I ought to be. I am not what I wish to be. I am not even what I hope to be. But by the cross of Christ, I am not what I was." ? John Newton.
Those people murdered in the name of the God you worship, therefore they were Christians, they lived from the same set of rules as you, the Bible.
whats the ideological difference? there is none. catholocism has been around for thousands of years, and to my knowledge the book of worship they used has never been changed.
Dinosaurs were lacking from mention in the book you speak of, that is why I brought them up.
My point was science has proven them to have existed millions of years ago, therefore giving more evidence to the history of the world.
That's why I said science is based on facts.
You simply cannot refute that Christian ideology is the basis for restrictions on homosexuality in this country. Quit avoding it and admit it, or I will not contiune to debate this with you. All of what you say is jusy refusing to state the truth and accept that it is true, and it is wrong to have a religion that not all americans believe in dictate laws and statues that affect those who are not religious.
If marriage is a religious basis, then take away all priveledges and benefits from men and women who get married. that would be a solution to the dilemma, no?
I can murder in the name of anyone and still not belong to them or represent them. No, the God I worship and his Bible does not condone that behavior in the slightest. If oy uwill notice the Catholic Bible is a little different than other Bibles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Evolution is true or is a fact because Dino's existed?? Liek I said as a Christian I am against it, but if the Bible did not exist I would still be against it, think about it, is it normal to see 2 people of the same sex interacting like they do? There is a lot wrong with that lifestyle regardless of what the Bible teaches about it. Most peoples basis and stances that support it are, this is a free country and the constitution supports it , so they can do it. I agree, but the constitution does not support marriage between the same sex. Heck, God even says they can be a homosexual if they want, he gave them that choice to choose.
No taking away privelages from married couples is not the solution, the solution is to stand up and say we will not condone this and not pass it, so continue to live your life as you wish but stop pushing your views on us as a nation on redefining marriage, it is fine just the way it is and has been for many years.
Since the beginning of recorded history, marriage has always been at the forefront of civilization. Before christianity, hinduism, or buddhism, or any of the other forms of religion that exist. Laws have always existed in some form and even in the times of the caveman IMO. This world could not possibly exist without some form of law and yes, even some forms of religion. We, as humans, have the need to be ruled by laws and religion. Some just choose to let their religion be their primary rule of law. Others let the laws of man govern them. To not have both, would mean anarchy, and I think we all can agree, if you think about it seriously, that nothing can exist long at all without laws and religion. Even anarchists have some kind of informal leader among them for some sort of direction.
Just getting off the topic for a minute, but valour, you sound and post a lot like a former poster who was banned from here a long time ago. Be truthful with us since you profess to be a christian, if that former poster is you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_centennialdawg
"SIMILARITY COMPLEX" This is in your signature and it appears that it can be applied to your reasoning. I am not a former poster, I am a current poster.
Oh boy, where to start with this spew of bigotry, misinformation and hatred?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Let's start with the treatment of homosexuals by Christians.
So do you prefer the way Muslim states like Iran treat homosexuals, that is round them up, imprison them and often execute them?
Or maybe the way atheist states like Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Stalin's Soviet Russia treated them, oh wait, that was exactly the same way, round them up, and execute them.
Well then maybe the way Hitler's Germany treated them during his great experiment with Darwinism and selective breeding? Oh wait........
I think I've already made the case and made it clear that the crusades were at their base a defensive action to Islamic imperialism which had reached all the way to middle France by the time Christians mounted a counter attack. To criticise Christian reaction at that time is to criticise the basic right to self defense.
The Inquisition was indefensible....but in 140 years about 3 to 5 thousand people died at the hands of the political entity that was the RCC at that time. On the other hand Hitler murdered about 7 million in a matter of only a few years during his grand demonstration of Darwinism, this included about 15,000 homosexuals, or 3 to 5 times the total number of victims of the inquisition.
To try to blame the evils committed throughout history on Christianity is to grossly misunderstand history and must, at it's core, be rooted in bigotry. The same bigotry that led Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler to outlaw Christian activity and act harshly to the violation of this law.
As for dinosaurs in the Bible? First, who cares and why would they be there anyway? Not much said about skunks, spiders, or hummingbirds either.
I know my views are different from most when it comes to the Bible, but really I am not concerned at all with the content of the Torah or the OT in general. All I concern myself with are the teachings of Jesus and the NT. One would not expect to find anything about Dinosaurs in the NT. So this is of absolutely no consequence to me personally.
In a quick defense of this I will say that I have seen some say that the "there were Giants in the earth in those days" being a reference to dinosaurs. Personally I don't believe this to be the case, but then again I don't really care as this is the OT.
see, you did the same he didQuote:
Originally Posted by Gotch
we arent talking about all other countries, we are talking about AMERICA, the land of the free.
We are debating letting Christian ideology influence politics, and homosexuality legislation in this country is just that, Christian-based.
you spent 20 minutes saying nothing that had anything to do with what we are discussing.
Do you deny that US policy towards homosexuals is based on Christian ideology?
It isnt only the inquisition and the crusades. You are a smart guy Gotch, you know about all the countless times in history people were murdered by the Catholic church purely for being heretic, or trying to teach science instead of religion.
Another point you cannot deny.
and for you not to mention that the Crusades also attacked pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes is leaving out crucial facts. All that to 'stop Islamic imperalism'? ha hardly.
The purpose of the Crusades was to regain the Holy Land.
btw, the term Crusades refers to more than simpy the war to gain back the Holy Land. The term also refers to the other 'missions' they were sent on by the Pope outside of Middle Eastern area.
giant creatures, bigger than buildings, that roamed the earth and terrorized early cave-man not being mentioned in a book that supposedly recaps the history of the world leads me to believe that it in fact has no factual basis. that was my point.
I am done with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
You refuse to accept truths, and only try to use rhetoric to dodge points.
You refuse to accept the truth that Christian ideology is the main reason for homosexuality legislation in the US. therefore, you are not worth debating with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
For the record, I'm agnostic, borderline atheist.
1) Where you been?
2) World is full of good people and not-so-good people, has little to do with ones religion, it doesn't make you any better of a person.
3) Somewhat. They certainly don't sway my opinion in favor of Christianity, I actually think more are driven away than converted the other.
4) There's a few things. The first is the inability of free-will, makes people to fearful to think of anything outside of what their religion tells them to. People don't like hearing that, but it's true. Second, I think it's done more harm to the world than good. And lastly, the better-than attitude held by a lot(not all) that they are right, all other Gods are wrong, and non-believers are some vile bunch.
Just some of the main ones, not all by any means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
People need to understand that evolution is not out to debunk creationism, it's out to put some understanding to where we came from, the fact that it goes against creationism isn't it's fault.
Actually science doesn't support it, it's a natural thing, go look it up. It happens in nature all the time, with many different species. Of course it only happens in a small portion, that makes perfect sense. The reason most reject it, is religion, most of the world is religious in some way. It is natural, already said that. Where is the record you are referring to? They are born gay, just like I and you were born straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
Let me ask, did you choose to be straight? Nope, you just were attracted to the opposite sex, same way with them.
History is full of injustices, blacks didn't use to be able to marry whites, that's a part of history...does it make it okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
I don't know how it influences them in a bad way, most seen and know what sex is at an early age, most turn out fine...have yet to see how it effects them so negatively. It's their body and choice, they aren't being forced to and they make good money, more power to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by valour
And I'm not quoting the other post, but marriage was redefined before i.e. with blacks, I see that as a good thing. YOU and the others are the ones pushing beliefs, I hate all this talk about the "sanctity of marriage"...go look up the divorce rate, look at the adultery, straights through out any "sanctity of marriage" a long time ago.
America you say? Well since the countries that treat homosexuals the best (less persecution, more rights and freedom) are predominately Christian nations, including the U.S. I would have to say, yes Christian views influence the way homosexuals are treated here, they are treated far better than in most none Christian nations, both current and historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
I think you killed your own argument with this, "you know about all the countless times in history people were murdered by the Catholic church purely for being heretic....". The Catholic Church of that time was far more a political entity than a religious one. Political entities, not religious one, are nearly always the source of mass violence. In fact, when compared to other political entities of the time they were far less violent in most cases.
One can point to numerous sins of the RCC, but the RCC in no way represents Christendom as a whole, no more than the current Taliban represent Islam as a whole.
I stand by my position that the Crusades were a defensive action. I think I've shown ample evidence of that. It is clear that Islamic imperialism had spread all the way to France. It was fight or wait to be next. Anyone would have made the same decision. Once in action the Crusaders were like any other professional army and a number of groups became collateral victims. I'm not claiming that to be false, in fact it is a simple truth of war, especially in those days.
Where do you get anything about dinosaurs and people living at the same time? In fact where do you get a young earth theory from the Bible?
But again, you are referring to the OT, and again I have no interest in it.
We treat homosexuals well, but we still treat them DIFFERENTLY. Therein lies the fault. Homosexuals are just people, they should be treated the same as anyone else. To admit that the US treats gays differently is to admit that homosexuality legislation in the US is religious-minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotch
You cannot separate Catholicism from politics at the time, seeing as how they were so closely entwined. All the repressed artists, scientists, etc.. were not killed for political reasons alone, they threatened the grasp of Catholicism on all people, therefore they had to be killed. You can say it is political, but then you have to admit all politics of the time was influenced by religion.
You are comparing the RCC to the Taliban?? Maybe we arent as far apart as thought.
Almost all of the modern world is out to get the Taliban, but no one has went after the Catholic Church. Therefore, you either have to say; the RCC is an accurate representation of Christianity, or the RCC is a cult that needs to be eradicated.
You can say the basis for the Crusades was defensive, but what about all the other ethnicities killed, all the other countries invaded, the 'side-missions' authorized by the Popes of the time.
You know a lot about this subject, I find it very hard to believe that you truly think that all actions taken during the Crusades were justified. I dont understand. You know that the Crusades had events that were totally unjustified and did not fit in with your definition of defensive action.
I understand you don't want to compromise your argument. But to lay out a blanket that covers all actions when you know there were incidents of invading non-Muslim countries and murders that were not purely defensive is not truthful.
Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, that isn't the origin of species in the book of Christianity?
I'll try to answer this by giving some of my view points or opinions.
I'm not sure that homosexuals are treated differently here due to religious reasons, that is possible, but they have been separated and terribly treated by atheist states too, so that doesn't necessarily follow in step.
I actually was not comparing the RCC to the Taliban, just making a point about separations within a broader group.
I've already said that there were collateral victims of the crusaders. The crusaders were a ruthless and methodical army, the only type of army that could have a chance of success in that time. Yeah, they could be pretty brutal. And some of the Popes in those days were simply evil people. Also yes, I believe the RCC has meet all qualifications for a cult during many periods of it's existence, that's no longer is true though. Plus, we don't or at least should not just routinely "eradicate" any groups, cult or not. Scientology is certainly a cult but I don't see us rounding up Cruise, Travolta, and Alley and burning them at the stake, although I would support doing so with Cruise.
My personal belief is that the OT and NT are two completely separate entities and should be treated as such. My belief is that the OT is open for a much broader interpretation than the NT. I also believe that serious mistakes in translation have occurred, some intentional.
My point about the homosexuals in America was that we pride ourselves on supposed equality and freedoms, the government acts like we accept everyone equally.
But letting religious views dictate legislation about homosexuals is downright sickening, to me.
Scientology is a cult; if we could get rid of them it would be a joyous day for me.
I am so glad you brought it up lol, I read a lot about them last night. About the woman who DIED because they tried to cleanse her of the crazies instead of taking her to a doctor, even though she could not walk or speak.
Lisa McPherson, look it up. It was so sad, I thought about going the militant Islam way and starting firebombing. It makes me that sick. They call banks and credit unions to get information, lie, shred documents, physically abuse members, even take out mortages on member's houses. They will attack anyone who threatens them. It scares me to death. Anon. did a great thing with their protests, but that only goes so far.
The government needs to step in and raid all their offices and disband them totally.
Read the stories from some of the defectors, itll make you madder than hell.
People put all this faith in a science fiction writer who was known as a SCAM.
At least we can agree that Scientology is a cult.
Scientology has a history of using intimidation against anyone who they perceive as an enemy. Even agents of the federal government. I agree that they are more dangerous and more out of hand than most people realize.
There are several scientologists that post on another forum I belong to. They have a pre-programmed answer for everything, try to act like all the criticism is misplaced and play the victim. They all use the exact same terms, tactics, etc.
Brainwashed......
Scientology is a cult and a scam.
You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. - L. Ron Hubbard
I agree they should be shut down somehow, but if they're going to, shut down the cult known as the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Couldn't agree more with Scientology or the Church of Latter Day Saints -- where you strive as men to become your own god and make people saints all the people who came on board as the 'founding fathers' of your 'religion'Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Hell look at their battles with the IRS for religious-exemption status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotch
Placing moles in the IRS, breaking in their offices to steal documents, falsifying documents, etc.
Brainwashed is the EXACT term I would use. It blows my mind that people actually believe in that junk. Thetan levels and alien spirits and a galactic terror named Xenu?: I mean really? I give Christians a hard time, but I at least respect their beliefs and such.
I wish the government would do more to counter act them. The IRS can't do it, it will be have to be a Dep. of Justice raid or CIA/FBI team manner.
I know we can't persecute people for their beliefs, but when they use intimidation and other illegal acts to run their cult, it need to be stopped.
Christianity is tithes and donations, but they do not make you pay money to belong to a religion.
When a religion charges money to become a member, ITS NOT A RELIGION! Its a for-profit business.
I am almost afraid to even really make it known and fight Scientology, because of what they do to people who go against them.
Gotch, if you want an interesting article, read this article from TIME in the early 90's and a great story written by the St. Petersburg Times, where one of the biggest cult offices is at Fort Harrison
TIME article;
Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power
St. Petersburg Times;
Scientology: The truth rundown | Tampabay.com St. Petersburg Times
please read those articles guys, its downright scary.
Just read the Time article. Very interesting and disturbing.
Thought this might be of interest:
Scientologists fined €600,000 for fraud - Europe, World News - Independent.ie