It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An argument why atheism is wrong and theism is the only rational choice

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rickymouse

I would disagree, I find there to be a higher percentage of Christian fundamentalist than atheists fundamentalists though atheist fundies are as bad as their Christian counter parts

Percentages is the key definition

Most atheists seem to be live and let live but there are a few who want to destroy


This, but more. I would add fundamentalists of any belief to your statement.

Not to mention that most atheists don't proselytize, we just are and we respect others beliefs. (But there are a few militant atheists out there ala Richard Dawkins.)

And as far as science goes, I find a higher percentage of fundamentals misusing science than I see atheists.

Just my thoughts.




posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Everything we know and enjoy today would not exist without religion. The medieval Islamic world created the 1st university (madrasah) in Morocco. The Catholic church created their universities 2 centuries later in Italy. Both of these universities still exist today, University of Al-Karaouine, though it didn't start teaching mathematics, physics, chemistry & foreign languages until 1957 & the University of Bologna, the term university was coined at its creation in the year 1088. The 1st accreditation of university degrees was authorized by Pope Innocent IV at Oxford University in the year 1254. Even the best books and movies most of us enjoy have a religious basis, like the Matrix, Star Wars & Marvel franchises. Also, Steven Hawkins even stated that "some form of intelligence" was actually behind the creation of the Universe. "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power".

www.pewforum.org...

Knowledge is infinite & what we know through university is a minuscule bandwidth of knowledge. Many get stuck in this minuscule bandwidth of knowledge. There's far more to life than what's taught at university. The sad part is how so many university professors are so anti-religion. They would not have a job without religion. I suggest those who don't believe in God studv Jesus' teachings. If you agree with the universal Golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”, then you agree with Jesus' teachings.
edit on 26-12-2018 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It's been my experience of atheists that, either they are,

1. Angry atheists, like Richard Dawkins. Seems more like a temper tantrum.
2. 'Moderate atheists'. These type are quite perplexing, because they 'borrow' a lot of practices and beliefs borne out of religion. For instance, the atheist who meditates every morning. The atheist who practices yoga. The atheist who's an atheist, but believes in 'karma', gets their tarot read.
3. Kinda like the 1st one, where they replace a tradition faith based system with a fanatic belief in science, as if science is a religion, and the scientist is their 'priest' (don't question the scientist).

Really, all 3, whether they realize or not, have 'spiritual' feelings inside of them.

The 1st one is an obvious one, as they seem the most fanatical, it's as if what's really bothering them, is that they are angry at God.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015



There is a simple truth that vindicates the existence of God. Reality needs an observer to exist. If there was no consciousness in the universe to observe it, it can be argued that the universe, for all intents and purposes would not exist. Who was the observer before life on Earth arose? Who was there for the big bang? The existence of all reality can only happen if there is a consciousness there to register it. There are literally trillions of galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, molecules, and particles, none of which would be here if there wasn't some universal consciousness to perceive and contemplate it. IMHO I have come to believe that all physical matter itself has a form of consciousness, IE there is some kind of information storage to tell a hydrogen atom how to behave, for molecules to bond together the way they do, to tell a star to exhibit a fusion reaction, to make gravity constant throughout the universe. All existence inherently carrying information within it,is thought, and IMHO that thought is occuring in the mind of God.
edit on 26-12-2018 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Starhooker
Old testament God was bi polar and insecure.

This reminds me of a very old argument. It comes in different forms...

Does God Change? Awake!—2000

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Does God Change?


ANTHROPOLOGIST George Dorsey described the God of the “Old Testament” as “a savage God.” He added: “Yahweh is . . . utterly unlovely. He is the God of plunderers, of torturers, of warriors, of conquest.” Others have reached similar conclusions regarding the God of the “Old Testament”—Yahweh, or Jehovah. Thus, some today wonder whether Jehovah was in fact a cruel God who eventually changed his character to become the loving and merciful God of the “New Testament.”

Such an idea about the God of the Bible is not new. It was first propounded by Marcion, a semi-Gnostic of the second century C.E. Marcion repudiated the God of the “Old Testament.” He considered that God to be violent and vindictive, a tyrant who offered material rewards to those worshiping him. On the other hand, Marcion described the “New Testament” God—as revealed through Jesus Christ—as a perfect God, a God of pure love and mercy, of graciousness and forgiveness.

Jehovah Meets the Challenge of Changing Conditions

God’s very name, Jehovah, means “He Causes to Become.” This implies that Jehovah causes himself to become the Fulfiller of all his promises. When Moses asked God his name, Jehovah elaborated on its meaning in this way: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14) Rotherham’s translation puts it this way: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.”

So Jehovah chooses to become, or proves to be, whatever is needed to fulfill his righteous purposes and promises. An evidence of this is the fact that he bears a wide array of titles and descriptive terms: Jehovah of armies, Judge, Sovereign, Jealous, Sovereign Lord, Creator, Father, Grand Instructor, Shepherd, Hearer of prayer, Repurchaser, happy God, and many others. He has chosen to become all of these—and much more—in order to carry out his loving purposes.—Exodus 34:14; Judges 11:27; Psalm 23:1; 65:2; 73:28; 89:26; Isaiah 8:13; 30:20; 40:28; 41:14; 1 Timothy 1:11.

Does this mean, then, that God’s personality or standards change? No. Regarding God, James 1:17 says: “With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.” How could God meet the challenge of varying circumstances while remaining unchanging himself?

The example of caring parents who shift roles for the sake of their children illustrates how this is possible. In the course of a single day, a parent may be a cook, a housekeeper, an electrician, a nurse, a friend, a counselor, a teacher, a disciplinarian, and much more. The parent does not change personality when assuming these roles; he or she simply adapts to needs as they arise. The same is true of Jehovah but on a far grander scale. There is no limit to what he can cause himself to become in order to fulfill his purpose and to benefit his creatures.—Romans 11:33.

For example, Jehovah is revealed as a God of love and mercy in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures. The prophet Micah of the eighth century B.C.E. asked about Jehovah: “Who is a God like you, one pardoning error and passing over transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? He will certainly not hold onto his anger forever, for he is delighting in loving-kindness.” (Micah 7:18) Similarly, the apostle John wrote the famous words: “God is love.”—1 John 4:8.

On the other hand, in both parts of the Bible, Jehovah is presented as the righteous Judge of those who repeatedly, grossly, and unrepentantly violate his laws and harm others. “All the wicked ones [Jehovah] will annihilate,” said the psalmist. (Psalm 145:20) In a similar vein, John 3:36 states: “He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

Unchanging in Qualities

Jehovah’s personality and cardinal qualities—love, wisdom, justice, and power—have not changed. He told the people of Israel: “I am Jehovah; I have not changed.” (Malachi 3:6) This was some 3,500 years after God’s creation of mankind. True to that divine statement, a close examination of the Bible as a whole reveals a God who is unchanging in his standards and qualities. There has been no mellowing of Jehovah God’s personality during the centuries, since no such mellowing was needed.

God’s firmness for righteousness, as revealed throughout the Bible, is no less nor his love any greater than it was at the beginning of his dealings with humans in Eden. The differences in his personality seemingly demonstrated in various parts of the Bible are in reality different aspects of the same unchanging personality. These result from the differing circumstances and persons dealt with, which called for different attitudes or relationships.

Hence, the Scriptures show clearly that God’s personality has not changed over the centuries and will not change in the future. Jehovah is the supreme embodiment of constancy and consistency. At all times he is dependable and trustworthy. We can always rely on him.

[Pictures on page 16, 17]

The same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah . . .

. . . will bring about a righteous new world



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

...those wars & etc without a religious component ...

What counts and what doesn't count as a "religious component" in your eyes? Just having another reason for the war?

1984: For three days 250 writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, psychoanalysts, scientists, economists and industrialists from Japan, Italy, France, the United States and many other countries gathered in Tokyo to discuss themes of world importance, including nationalism. Jorge Luis Borges, renowned Argentinian writer and poet, said that nationalism is dividing the world, adding: “In this sense, it is the arch-villain of all the evils. It divides people, it destroys the good side of human nature, it leads to inequality in the distribution of wealth.”

Philippine educator Primo L. Tongko, continues: “Nationalistic attitudes” have filled the “pages of history with continuous wars for conquest, colonization, exploitation and oppression, thus giving rise to all kinds of prejudices, suspicions and hatred that now divide the world.”

Then he asks: “Is it not high time that we reverse the course of history from that of division to that of union, by getting rid of or abolishing these practices that have caused the sad state of affairs we now have in our divided and confused world?”

“Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.”​—What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.

“Twenty-five years ago this June,” observes the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America”, “Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

1982: Israel’s military advance into Lebanon prompted much comment on what is behind the hatreds that seem to pervade the Middle East. “The great tragedy,” observed Dennis Braithwaite of The Toronto Sun, “is that the Israelis and the Palestinians, both Semitic peoples, should be warring at all over territory in which both are at home and could logically share in peace.” In Braithwaite’s opinion, “all that really divides them is religion; the rest is rationalization, propaganda, lies. . . . Take religious fanaticism out of the equation, and what have Arab and Jew left to fight about?”

But the columnist noted that religious hatreds are not limited to the Middle East: “Observe the insanity in Northern Ireland, where two conceptions of the Christian religion have caused people who look alike, talk alike and spring from the same soil, to lock themselves in a death struggle that baffles the outsider. What but religion keeps the IRA and the Ulster Defence League in constant plots of assassination and reprisal? When they’re interviewed on television, you can’t tell one from the other.”

Braithwaite went on to state that “religion is but one form of nationalism, the concept of ‘them’ and ‘us,’ . . . the greatest threat of all to mankind’s future.”

Nationalism:

On this subject an amusing story is told about an army chaplain in Scotland who, at a new military camp, asked for volunteers to convert an old barn into a chapel. In the absence of the chaplain the volunteers painted in large letters above the altar: “Scotland forever and ever.” The surprised chaplain asked them to make the sign a bit more religious. They did. The inscription then read: “Scotland forever and ever. AMEN.”

Scotsmen are known for being very proud of their country. But they are not alone in this. For example, English children, especially in the days when the British Empire was dominant in the world, were fed nationalistic fervor from earliest childhood. They were taught to believe that ‘Britannia Rules the Waves,’ and that the English are a superior nation, blessed by God.

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

Too, as the story of the chapel in Scotland shows, nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

And just because it's such a catchy tune:

I don't think I'll ever describe that as "without a religious component", no matter what one may argue. WW I was no different. And this song is just the tip of the iceberg of religious components in those wars that were fought for other reasons. As I mentioned before:

All this in full agreement with the notorious fact that churches have been used as recruiting stations and propaganda centers in times of war.

Matthew 21:13

And he said to them: “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a cave of robbers.”

War profiteering - Wikipedia
edit on 26-12-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Atheism doesn't nessarily mean they believe in science either, or much less care how anything works at all.

Sloth the indolent said to be a sin, where as the argument of doing good things in whomever Lord one worship seem to be where themain concern of any thiest is nihilism.

I'll stick with being agnostic and say it possible, with some Gnostics saying it not.
edit on 26-12-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Man being inherently spiritual doesn't prove the existence of a God. We are more than just flesh and blood, that should be at least obvious to both believers and non-believers. If anything I think that "believers" are just lazy people who are content to satisfy their spiritual dimension with the low hanging fruit, without asking any further questions.

"I believe" actually means "I don't know". Neither believers nor atheists actually "know" so the "holier than you" attitude is funny to watch from both sides.

And religion is just a form a control, it's spirituality hijacked for material purposes.
In my opinion God can only be a personal experience, this why is so hard to prove it to another person. The rest of the religious mish-mash is only human propaganda.
I have no problem to admit that I don't know the truth, and to leave it at there. If god is out there and he needs me I believe he would know where to find me.


edit on 26-12-2018 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
Revelation denounces Babylon’s fornication with “the kings of the earth,” its political rulers. The harlot is pictured as sitting “on many waters,” meaning “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.” (Revelation 17:1, 2, 15) By having a cozy relationship with the political rulers, false religion over the centuries has overtly or covertly used its influence in suppressing and exploiting the common people.

Examples of this dominance are the concordats, or agreements, that the Vatican signed with Nazi and Fascist rulers in this 20th century. As a consequence, church influence over the flocks led to total subservience to ruthless rulers. In 1929 the Vatican concluded a concordat with Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. What followed in Germany? German cardinal Faulhaber, attributing the following words to Pius XI, gives insight into the pope’s thinking about Hitler: “I am pleased; he is the first statesman to have spoken out against Bolshevism.” Faulhaber later noted: “My journey to Rome confirmed what I might have suspected for a long time. In Rome, National Socialism and Fascism are considered the only deliverance from Communism and Bolshevism.”

Germany’s Catholic bishops had opposed the Nazi philosophy prior to 1933. But as German author Klaus Scholder states in his book The Churches and the Third Reich, the bishops were commanded by the Vatican’s ambassador to Germany, Cardinal Pacelli, to revise their attitude toward National Socialism. What prompted this change? It was the prospect of the concordat between the Third Reich and the Vatican, which was concluded July 20, 1933.

Klaus Scholder reports: “At the election and plebiscite of 12 November [1933] Hitler reaped the fruits of the Reich concordat by surprisingly high ‘yes’ votes, above all in predominantly Catholic circles of the electorate.”

Although a few Protestant leaders expressed opposition to the Nazi takeover in 1933, their voices soon became lost in the mass clamor of nationalism. Scholder explains: “There was clearly an increasing readiness in the Protestant church to abandon the caution exercised in the past and now at last also to get caught up in the national enthusiasm. . . . Official church statements appeared for the first time which supported the new Reich without reservations.” In fact, Protestantism sold itself out to Nazi nationalism and became its handmaiden, just as the Catholic Church had done.

Down through the centuries, the historical record shows, false religion has consorted with the powerful ruling elite groups and bolstered their prestige to the detriment of the common people. The ‘mental attitude of Christ’ has not been reflected by the world’s religious leaders, who have hungrily sought after power, property, and wealth.

The history of false religion is one of hatred and bloodshed, with Christendom being the most bloodguilty. Two world wars started in the realm of so-called Christian nations. “Christian” political leaders resorted to arms in 1914 and 1939, and the clergy in all contending nations gave their blessing. The Columbia History of the World states regarding World War I: “Truth was devalued along with life, and hardly a voice was raised in protest. The guardians of God’s word led the martial chorus. Total war came to mean total hatred.” Army chaplains urged their soldiers on with patriotic fervor as the youth of both sides became cannon fodder. The same history book states: “The systematic poisoning of men’s minds by paroxysms of nationalism . . . further obstructed the search for peace.”

False religion worldwide continues to engender hatred as conflicts rage between Jew and Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu, Buddhist and Hindu. Yes, false religion continues to contribute to the bloodbath “of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.”​—Revelation 18:24.

On July 20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.* In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.” The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.” Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.” In addressing the College of Mondragone on May 14, 1929, Pope Pius XI said that he would negotiate with the Devil himself if the good of souls required it. By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year” by Pope Pius XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination.

*: William L. Shirer’s historical work The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states that von Papen was “more responsible than any other individual in Germany for Hitler’s coming to power.” In January 1933 former German chancellor von Schleicher had said of von Papen: “He proved to be the kind of traitor beside whom Judas Iscariot is a saint.”

In his book Franz von Papen​—His Life and Times, published in 1939, H. W. Blood-Ryan describes in detail the intrigues whereby that papal knight brought Hitler to power and negotiated the Vatican’s concordat with the Nazis.

Why the Churches Kept Silent: Awake!—1995

...Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University spoke ... about a troublesome “concrete truth.” ...

The truth, Littell said, was that “six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated.” ..

Catholic historian E. I. Watkin wrote: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. . . . Where belligerent nationalism is concerned they have spoken as the mouthpiece of Caesar.”... As Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Friedrich Heer, admitted: “In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.”
..
The reason the churches were silent becomes clear. It is because Christendom’s clergy and their flocks had abandoned the teachings of the Bible in favor of supporting the political state. In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Roman Catholic cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing. . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

None of us have clean hands:

Letter to Hitler & Declaration of Facts - JWFacts

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
here , i would like you to be able to add this thread to your argument,

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Within Above Thread.

To yourself,
from Yourself,

merry nimrodmass!!!



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
did Judas sin when he turned christ in for 30 pieces of gold? I mean, it WAS part of God's plan was it not? Would God's plan NEED for a person to sin to come to fullfillment? or, was Judas actually doing God's will? A man starts his life out as a child, brought up in a church but sometime around adulthood, he decides that it's just not for him and walks away. He soon finds himself in a very dark place. He has friends, he starts a family, has a wife. But then, one day, something awakens in him, and he searches out that god of his youth. And, he brings not only himself back into the faith but also his wife and children. He uses his past drug addiction that God has delivered him from as a testimony to minister to other addicts and they improve their lives because of him. so, well, did he sin, or did he just walk the path that god had ordained for him to walk?



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well I would strongly disagree
Science is a part of the atheist religion and fundie atheists abuse science like no one I have ever seen
Atheists fundies do proselytize, constantly and aggressively, as bad as any other religion, just look at this thread. As for respecting others beliefs, you have got to be joking haven’t you

Atheist fundamentalists are no different from any other breed of fundamentalist
ATS is a proof of that

Fortunately most atheists are not fundies



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

God doesn’t choose our path, we do
We are all subjects of a broken world

Some people want to blame God for bad decisions



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Don't take this wrong but sounds like your trying to convince your self or your an atheist like me that gets off on jerking peoples chain. Good argument and it seems your faith gives you great peace. I am happy you have found bliss in your belief. But no matter what happens, I can never find bliss in that system. Sorry, I find my happiness elsewhere and it works for me.
My story? It's no one's damned business. Your story? Right a book, if I am interested. I will buy it.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

A god ensures pain and suffering makes since for the masses. The oldest control system since the advent of henpecking. Don't worry, the elite will get theirs in the afterlife and you will be kings but, you have to turn the other cheek to have that kingdom in heaven. You have to be passive and in some cases, you are allowed to be assertive but those are regarding minor decisions. Something, that gives a simple believer that feeling of being part of something bigger than themselves. Let's see governments get up to 30 percent and the church gets 10 percent. Oh come by the church and let us teach you how to apply for government benefits, now remember Jesus gets 10 percent. Meanwhile can your children be in the choir, oh they are safe, believe blindly, they will be better men and women because of their secrecy and loyalty. It won't sell anymore.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServiusTull
a reply to: toms54

A god ensures pain and suffering makes since for the masses. The oldest control system since the advent of henpecking. Don't worry, the elite will get theirs in the afterlife and you will be kings but, you have to turn the other cheek to have that kingdom in heaven. You have to be passive and in some cases, you are allowed to be assertive but those are regarding minor decisions. Something, that gives a simple believer that feeling of being part of something bigger than themselves. Let's see governments get up to 30 percent and the church gets 10 percent. Oh come by the church and let us teach you how to apply for government benefits, now remember Jesus gets 10 percent. Meanwhile can your children be in the choir, oh they are safe, believe blindly, they will be better men and women because of their secrecy and loyalty. It won't sell anymore.
If it's so nice and easy like you say, I wonder then how millions of Christians have been horrifically tortured and killed for their faith, in the past, and now - especially now in places like Sudan.

You're a rebel without a clue?



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Assemble
It's been my experience of atheists that, either they are,

1. Angry atheists, like Richard Dawkins. Seems more like a temper tantrum.
2. 'Moderate atheists'. These type are quite perplexing, because they 'borrow' a lot of practices and beliefs borne out of religion. For instance, the atheist who meditates every morning. The atheist who practices yoga. The atheist who's an atheist, but believes in 'karma', gets their tarot read.
3. Kinda like the 1st one, where they replace a tradition faith based system with a fanatic belief in science, as if science is a religion, and the scientist is their 'priest' (don't question the scientist).

Really, all 3, whether they realize or not, have 'spiritual' feelings inside of them.

The 1st one is an obvious one, as they seem the most fanatical, it's as if what's really bothering them, is that they are angry at God.


"spiritual feelings" do not necessitate a god/creator. That's a wondeful misconnection that believers in a creator make all the time. Therefore you logic is flawed.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well I don't know if your logic is right there, but i'll say all 3 are motivated by 'spiritual' feelings/desires. I can't say i'm bothered about getting into a discussion about what is meant by spiritual here. Sometimes 2+2 is 4 because it really just is 4.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Actually all theists sin. Only difference is they believe they will be forgiven by a higher power, yet reject where their reality really puts them.

Atheists on the other hand, can choose between being moralistic or not. Depends on how they were raised around morals. Or if they self taught themselves to have morals.

This whole arguement is based on assumptions, that one cannot be the other. But one can change throughout their lifetime so much, in the end it really didn't matter.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join