Preaching Atheism

[aronnax]

Yup. The same God that is at once everything and allthing. He (for some reason he definitely isn't a she...) is the beginning and the end.

At the same time he is Yahweh, God (all of the Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormon, and cultish versions included) and Allah. He is also and isn't also Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He is always merciful, always vengeful, with unlimited love and never-ending hatred. He is extremely pity and extremely gracious, he's malevolent and magnanimous, never changing or going back on his word, but always changing and going back on his word.

He is omnipotent and omniscient, but is always surprised at the good and evil thoughts and acts that humans do. Which he didn't foresee when he made them. Even though he has planned how everything will work out from the beginning (Except the Tree of Knowledge-part. He knew that was going to happen, he made Lucifer/Satan (which is and isn't also the snake which did and didn't have legs while talking to Eve) and the humans and made the garden and put the tree and the humans and the snake there, but was shocked when it happened).

I should go on, but I'm bored. Go read the some "holy" scriptures if you want all the details...

Have my baby. Have all our babies.


Back on topic. While I hate any form of missionary work for any ideal, religion, lack of religion or stock market option, currently the law in probably 98% of all countries, do not prohibit religious missionary work. Therefore, this is a simple case of "If you can't beat them, join them", "Be more Irish than the Irish themselves" and "Fight fire with fire". I say, unleash hordes of aggressive Atheist Missionaries (AM)! Let them swarm the land and infiltrate the ranks of communities all over the globe! Destroy blind faith and replace with the doctrine of common sense, logical thinking and tolerance! If there is a church, mosque, temple, shine or synagogue, the AM will be there! If there is a sexually troubled teen whose parents opted for abstinence, the AM will be there! If there is a person who just underwent a near death experience, the AM will be there! And they will fixed them all good.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I used religion in general, not pointing out specifics.

"You atheists" :rolleyes"

 

[Traitorfish]

You atheists should really stop thinking of faith as all-Abrahamic.

This from the person who did not realise that "atheism" was not synonymous with "non-spiritual non-theism", and that "faith" was not synonymous with "spiritual theism"? Seems a mite hypocritical.

 

[History buff33]

You know as much of an atheist as I am, I must say it's not exactly comforting to know that when I die, I'm nothing. I no longer see, hear, think, or speak. I have no consceience. It was this fear that kept me wanting religion to be true for the longest time. Obviously though, I eventually overcame that. I guess all we can do is enjoy life and love the ones close to us, because this life is all there is.

 

[Angst]

This from the person who did not realise that "atheism" was not synonymous with "non-spiritual non-theism", and that "faith" was not synonymous with "spiritual theism"? Seems a mite hypocritical.

If you want to stamp religion as following one set of rules, then you may do that. Fact is, when I am told that "religion is a hammer", I happen to disagree, because that statement is not true. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the post; I happen to agree with the statement that "most religions are "hammers". (At least the ones I know of myself.) The statement is still not true, because it is presented as an absolute, not as a generalization. I think I had the right to point that out. I hinted at the whole thing in the post, and apparently Ziggy Stardust was too quick to actually spot that mine was mostly a minor correction - not a counter-argument.

Also, you may blame me for hypocrisy, but I have still been told and enlightened by you in the other thread; I have learned and understood what you told me. Besides, blaming a guy for hypocrisy is easy, but that still makes one wrong. If a person is wrong at something, and another person points it out, it doesn't matter whether the second person is wrong at something else or not; the first person is still wrong. Really, Traitorfish, you're actully one of the few people in this forum I happen to agree with 95% of the time, and I enjoy your posts. You may point out "hypocrisy", but I've learned, and it's essentially not very nice of you to say that I don't have anything to say because I used to be wrong earlier.

Hypocrisy is only wrong if I present a set of basic laws/norms/morals and don't follow them myself. Hypocrisy because I was wrong before is not hypocrisy; to me it seems like it is just a random post that pointed out nothing other than having me shut up with whatever you don't want me to type. And I don't really like that. Do you follow at any rate?

(No, I'm not that. I just didn't get how that post was constructive at all.)

EDIT: Also, I think "you atheists" is a perfectly legit phrase, as I adressed the OP, who has apparently attempted to look like one. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding anything in the thread title.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I apologise for my rudeness, and I'm sorry for causing offence. It was meant light-heartedly, but that was, I see now, far from self-evident in my phrasing. My apologies.

 

[Angst]

Well, I apologise for my rudeness, and I'm sorry for causing offence. It was meant light-heartedly, but that was, I see now, far from self-evident in my phrasing. My apologies.

Now I feel bad. xD

Don't worry mate, there's really nothing wrong with it. Wall of text merely arose because I try to stamp as many (valid) arguments into a post as I type. I'm very terrible at reading light-heartedness on forums; and equally bad to present it myself.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you want to stamp religion as following one set of rules, then you may do that. Fact is, when I am told that "religion is a hammer", I happen to disagree, because that statement is not true. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the post; I happen to agree with the statement that "most religions are "hammers". (At least the ones I know of myself.) The statement is still not true, because it is presented as an absolute, not as a generalization. I think I had the right to point that out. I hinted at the whole thing in the post, and apparently Ziggy Stardust was too quick to actually spot that mine was mostly a minor correction - not a counter-argument.

[...]

EDIT: Also, I think "you atheists" is a perfectly legit phrase, as I adressed the OP, who has apparently attempted to look like one. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding anything in the thread title.

"You atheists" is more of a generalisation than talking about the concept of religion. I also said religion is like a hammer, too illustrate you can use the concept of religion to make people do bad things, but you can also use that same concept to do good things, or to get peace of mind, or whatever positives you can get out of it.

Again, I was not talking about specific religions. I'm sure you believe your religion cannot be used for bad things, but that doesn't invalidate the analogy. It's like saying you can't drown in water because a glass of water is way too small to drown in. When you say: "most religions are hammers" you are not getting it. I think you regard a hammer as being a bad thing when it's a very useful tool and you can build wonderful stuff with it. But use it wrongly, like using it as a weapon, and you can do bad things with it. Whether it is used for good or bad, the one using the hammer, or the one using religion, determines and is to blame/credited for it's usage.

The analogy is supposed to be about the concept of religion. Not your religion, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism.

 

[FredLC]

Lemme ask:

What religion isn't "like a hamer", and how exactly they differ?

Regards .

 

[Angst]

"You atheists" is more of a generalisation than talking about the concept of religion.

No it isn't. It's the same thing.

I also said religion is like a hammer, too illustrate you can use the concept of religion to make people do bad things, but you can also use that same concept to do good things, or to get peace of mind, or whatever positives you can get out of it.

Again, I was not talking about specific religions. I'm sure you believe your religion cannot be used for bad things, but that doesn't invalidate the analogy. It's like saying you can't drown in water because a glass of water is way too small to drown in. When you say: "most religions are hammers" you are not getting it. I think you regard a hammer as being a bad thing when it's a very useful tool and you can build wonderful stuff with it. But use it wrongly, like using it as a weapon, and you can do bad things with it. Whether it is used for good or bad, the one using the hammer, or the one using religion, determines and is to blame/credited for it's usage.

The analogy is supposed to be about the concept of religion. Not your religion, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism.

Just noting that I got all of this; I don't know whether that stood out in the post before or not. My religion is looking inwards only, and praises logic and knowledge for the enlightenment of oneself. I don't need any religious authorities to correct me at anything; I'm basically against that. I don't need to convince anyone of what I believe in as well, all I need is to be respected. If someone would embrace what I believe in, and then somehow use it as a 'bad' hammer; then it's not the same religion that is embraced; a different one.

Lemme ask:

What religion isn't "like a hamer", and how exactly they differ?

Regards .

Mine, because a basic belief is that faith is personal, and shouldn't be influenced by others. It's internal; it's like a hammer, but I can't see it being a 'bad' hammer, as it would revert to another religion to be able to become so. I don't see the analogy remaining true with what I believe in.

And I'd like to revert on my account before; when I said Ziggy was incorrect, it was because I was tired. I clearly see now that the phrase is perfectly fine (He talked about the concept about religion; not "religions are like hammers". Sorry for my phrase confusion); but I still think my post can stand as legit anyways. It's got some points.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My religion is looking inwards only, and praises logic and knowledge for the enlightenment of oneself. I don't need any religious authorities to correct me at anything; I'm basically against that. I don't need to convince anyone of what I believe in as well, all I need is to be respected. If someone would embrace what I believe in, and then somehow use it as a 'bad' hammer; then it's not the same religion that is embraced; a different one.

I don't know whether what you're describing can be classified as a religion without stretching the common definitions. I'm not sure but I guess what you are describing is your spirituality. Is it important to you whether it's called a religion or not? Does it matter to you?

And mind you, the hammer isn't good or bad, it's not subject to morality. The person wielding it is.

And I'd like to revert on my account before; when I said Ziggy was incorrect, it was because I was tired. I clearly see now that the phrase is perfectly fine (He talked about the concept about religion; not "religions are like hammers". Sorry for my phrase confusion); but I still think my post can stand as legit anyways. It's got some points.

I never took it as you saying I was incorrect, since you specified it was a "minor correction". I'm not really arguing with you or disagreeing, I just want to be sure you're not taking offence because of the notion I'm making sweeping generalisations about specific religions.

 

[Angst]

I don't know whether what you're describing can be classified as a religion without stretching the common definitions. I'm not sure but I guess what you are describing is your spirituality. Is it important to you whether it's called a religion or not? Does it matter to you?

Well, I don't really care what other people think. I think of it more as a religion than spirituality. I think my worldview is closer to Buddhism than Christianity; my religion is perhaps more spiritual than "religious". I don't pray. I believe in science. I don't think God will do anything for us. But I still believe that the entity I recognize as God is present everywhere; and that he defines that we exist. It's hard to explain without getting technical and sounding stupid in English.

And mind you, the hammer isn't good or bad, it's not subject to morality. The person wielding it is.

Of course.

I never took it as you saying I was incorrect, since you specified it was a "minor correction". I'm not really arguing with you or disagreeing, I just want to be sure you're not taking offence because of the notion I'm making sweeping generalisations about specific religions.

Great. - So we make minor corrections at each other to clarify just a bit. Gotcha. No, I didn't take offence exactly; you didn't say anything bad against me nor against religion as a concept, only against stupid people. I recognize and hope for that sort of thinking.

 

[Souron]

And mind you, the hammer isn't good or bad, it's not subject to morality. The person wielding it is.

I think that's taking it too far. Religions have doctrine. They dictate morality. And what they dictate may be immoral.

For example, any doctrine that endorses "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation." is immoral by international agreement. In short, I would argue that any religion that endorses slavery is immoral.


I don't mean to say that a person is not accountable for his own wrongful actions, but if those actions stem from specific religious doctrine, then the religion is also immoral.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think that's taking it too far. Religions have doctrine. They dictate morality. And what they dictate may be immoral.

For example, any doctrine that endorses "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation." is immoral by international agreement. In short, I would argue that any religion that endorses slavery is immoral.

I don't mean to say that a person is not accountable for his own wrongful actions, but if those actions stem from specific religious doctrine, then the religion is also immoral.

I agree. Which is why I specified I was talking about the concept of religion in that analogy. The definition of religion.

The way that concept takes shape into specifics is subject to morality, because it needs someone to give it that shape.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Re-reading this thread I noticed there's one thing missing from all 10 pages. I thought about creating a new thread, but this one will have to do. From the OP:

For many people who have faith, doubt seems to be the worse thing that can happen to you. Satan is said to be cackling in glee when he makes people doubt their faith. If that's true, I'd be considered Satan's Pawn. Is promoting doubt offensive to those who have faith?

Well. Is it? Is it wrong for me to try to persuade people to doubt their faith? Even though snowball, chance and hell?

 

[PeteAtoms]

Re-reading this thread I noticed there's one thing missing from all 10 pages. I thought about creating a new thread, but this one will have to do. From the OP:

For many people who have faith, doubt seems to be the worse thing that can happen to you. Satan is said to be cackling in glee when he makes people doubt their faith. If that's true, I'd be considered Satan's Pawn. Is promoting doubt offensive to those who have faith?

Well. Is it? Is it wrong for me to try to persuade people to doubt their faith? Even though snowball, chance and hell?

Isn't the commone claim by religious, "God wants peoples' faith to be tested, therefore doubt is necessary for a strong faith." ? How could it be offensive, when it is defended by the people who it's supposed to offend?

Besides, Christians (or any faithful people of a missionary faith) do their best to convert non-believers, regardless of their beliefs, what's the diff?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't the common claim by religious, "God wants peoples' faith to be tested, therefore doubt is necessary for a strong faith." ? How could it be offensive, when it is defended by the people who it's supposed to offend?

I think it's God supposed to do the testing. Not JanKees atheist Dutchieman from Dykescountry.

And besides, I'm not testing their faith. I want to destroy it completely so they can look at the world with a true open mind. They might come back to their faith, they might not. This is impossible, so just doubt will have to do.

Besides, Christians (or any faithful people of a missionary faith) do their best to convert non-believers, regardless of their beliefs, what's the diff?

Well, this is what I'm angling at. Often the case is made that it is compulsory for a Christian to try to save souls. And in a way, I am trying to save minds from mindlessly accepting things which are told to them by authority figures. Preachers, scientists, books or so-called common wisdom.

I do believe complete faith kills progress and causes stagnation for those involved in it. I know those who have that faith disagree, but I'm wondering whether they would consider my promotion of doubt offensive, or whether they understand the intention behind it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just because I bumped the other two, and one of them is preaching Christianity, there should be balance in the force.

Maybe this last comment of mine is provocative enough: "I do believe complete faith kills progress and causes stagnation for those involved in it. I know those who have that faith disagree, but I'm wondering whether they would consider my promotion of doubt offensive, or whether they understand the intention behind it. "

(Please, this to tavern as well)

Moderator Action: Thus reducing OT to below 3 million posts.

edit: I made a difference!

You guys move fast by the way.

 

[timtofly]

According to my faith, nothing offends me. According to my emotions, I am easily offended.

You are correct in that Christianity has messed up in trying to force anything on any one. You are correct in doubt being a key factor. Doubt is the difference in obedience and trusting one's own emotions. I used obedience instead of convictions. From my "perspective" of the Bible, obedience is what counts, not conviction. Non-beleivers as well as believers both use doubt, that is the easiest form. Attacking convictions is the next step. Convictions are produced by education, environment, philosophy, peer exceptance. The hardest step is getting one to disobey. Not that it is the hardest, but the more one attacks obedience, "martydom", the more it strengthens conviction not weakens it. The easiest way is to provide apathy and/or make them so comfortable, they themselves make the choice not to obey.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Re-reading this thread I noticed there's one thing missing from all 10 pages. I thought about creating a new thread, but this one will have to do. From the OP:

For many people who have faith, doubt seems to be the worse thing that can happen to you. Satan is said to be cackling in glee when he makes people doubt their faith. If that's true, I'd be considered Satan's Pawn. Is promoting doubt offensive to those who have faith?

Well. Is it? Is it wrong for me to try to persuade people to doubt their faith? Even though snowball, chance and hell?

God can use people who make us doubt to actually strengthen our faith. And its not like God doesn't want us to think. So no, its not "Offensive."

We certainly wish you'd join us though