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.

 

Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers?

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by sirnex



I don't know much about Dawkins, so what exactly do you think he is 'demanding'?


this is not a demand but an example of ignorant speech - Dawkins equates religion with child abuse - that's inflammatory - the kind of language that promotes fear and misunderstanding among people who have little or no knowledge of what Christianity teaches....


You profess the greatness of Jesus, yet he is a false prophet according to your bible. Christianity cites the messianic prophecies, but ignore that he even fulfilled all of them and in an attempt to justify this they invent the concept of the second coming. Kudos for not listening to God's warning about false prophets!


Here you show your complete contempt for research and lack of knowledge about Christianity or anything it teaches...do you really want me to get into the details of Catholic dogma??? I can if you like but seems like that would be for another thread
Suffice to say for the moment you are completely off base but we can continue down that road if you choose and
I'll post on it if you're really interested...but somehow I don't think you are.


Then we should equally be against economics and social philosophy as they are equally contribution to those political forms. Heck, anything used by communism/Marxism should be hated just as equally as atheism if we go by that logic.


Not so - Atheism IS a social philosophy for one thing and more importantly denies the authority of God and provided justification for the destruction of the church which was the center of culture -especially in czarist Russia - can't have a revolution or absolute control if there is a rival contender for the hearts and minds of the proletariat...the modern Marxist state sought to be the only authority in peoples lives and the existence and widespread influence of a powerful church contradicted this - in the end this turning of hearts and minds toward the state could only be accomplished with force, intimidation and ultimately murder -

Economic socialism on the other hand has been achieved peacefully in many European countries in the last eighty years without violence because these governments chose wisely not to force people to change their ideological and religious beliefs - and the upshot is that Europe has had a significant decline in religious activity in recent decades - you should be wooting for joy here



now you need to do the same and stop excusing your brother atheists who have used their philosophy to justify crimes against humanity.... then we can have a more in depth conversation....



I am not excusing what they did, simply pointing out that atheism is not a sole explicit reason in the same light that God is a sole explicit reason. Being an atheist doesn't inherently make atheism explicitly invoked and certainly not when it's only one of many reasons for a political killing.


okay... but I hate to break it you but God was never the sole reason for the atrocities that took place in the name of the church -

The Crusades were a response to the Muslim attacks on Jerusalem and the Muslims won
- the Muslims were in a territorial expansion mode and the Christians were in defense mode - often a monarch would whip up the population to go on Crusade for their own aggrandizement much like politicians do today when they are promoting the latest war and say things like "For God and country" - makes my blood boil and I'm pretty sure God
isn't crazy about it either...especially when the war is not justified - ok thats another thread too


The Spanish Inquisition was in large part a political move but also religious and in my opinion the darkest hour of the Catholic church:


The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems. Following the Crusades and the Reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation.


During this time the Jews of Spain were targeted - the Jews during this period were not allowed into the various craft guilds and because of the usury laws Christians were not allowed to loan money professionally at interest so the Jews filled this niche in many European societies and became wealthy and influential in the process - and envied and feared as a consequence - add the religious element and the pogram is born...


Realshanti

atheism is an absolute requirement for the destruction of the church and its beliefs



The *bleep* it is. Atheism makes no requirements at all, it is simply the non-belief in deities. Whatever political actions are committed are not inherently nor explicitly invoking atheism as atheism by itself does not demand a damn thing. An atheist himself *may* call for the destruction of the church, but non have explicitly invoked atheism as the sole reason, instead they turned to a political action against the church, which is not something atheism demands or requires and never has.


You took my comment out of context here - I stated that in the context of Marxist justification for the destruction of the church - and my statement still stands - I did not say that atheism requires anything - I meant atheism itself IS a requirement of marxist philosphy for the destruction of the church. Marxists used atheism as social justification for this - hope that's clear enough for you

Realshanti

so once again you have not addressed with honesty the issues which have been raised in this thread



I have actually, in fact, it's the second post in this thread. Ah, but you would already know that if you bothered to read the thread from the beginning and have a better understanding of why I even had to start defending atheism against false claims from Christians. Again, Atheism demands nothing, simply a non-belief in any deity.


Actually I have read the entire thread - false claims?? Are you serious? I guess that's what you call disagreement
Atheism demands a leap of faith I'm not willing to take - that there is no first cause... and sometimes it demands that I debate with folk who know next to nothing about history or religion they are attacking. A simple non-belief my aunt fanny
But its been fun




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 



this is not a demand but an example of ignorant speech - Dawkins equates religion with child abuse - that's inflammatory - the kind of language that promotes fear and misunderstanding among people who have little or no knowledge of what Christianity teaches....


So, if I am understanding you right, being told it's OK by God to stone your child is *not* child abuse?


Here you show your complete contempt for research and lack of knowledge about Christianity or anything it teaches...do you really want me to get into the details of Catholic dogma??? I can if you like but seems like that would be for another thread Suffice to say for the moment you are completely off base but we can continue down that road if you choose and
I'll post on it if you're really interested...but somehow I don't think you are.


I am interested, so go for it. If you have scriptural evidence that the messiah was *not* supposed to fulfill the prophecies outright, then I'll bow down nad quietly shut it. Until then, as it stands, the messiah as far as I know was not supposed to die before fulfilling all the prophecies and was not supposed to institute a new religious regime. The Messiah was to bring both houses together, not invent Christianity.


Atheism IS a social philosophy


No, it is not. Atheism is nothing more than the non-belief in any deity, not just the monotheistic one. We don't care if it's God or Zeus, no supernatural deity exists. What one atheist wishes to do does not speak for all atheists.


atheism is an absolute requirement for the destruction of the church and its beliefs


Came off as you stating a requirement to me! Don't mix a non-belief in something with a political agenda, please.


Atheism demands a leap of faith I'm not willing to take - that there is no first cause...


It doesn't state that at all. Again, Atheism is nothing more than the simple non-belief in any deity. Science does offer a first cause, leap of faith not need apply. I would hazard a guess that it requires a larger leap of faith to blindly believe in the magical tooth fairy *God* without any actual evidence for him. At least sciences answer to the first cause has *some* evidence in favor of it. I'm sorry, not all religions can be true and with monotheism being the new kid on the block, most likely is less truer than all the other one's proven false.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I'm taking a break for a while but I'll be back to post on the religious points- frankly my dear sirnex your so full of BS with your 'atheism is nothing but a simple belief in no deity' chant - kinda like a broken record with no where to go
later - I'm a sleepy God lover



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Do you realise who coined this term?

Bolshevistic Zionism

I'll give you a hint. He had a funny mustache and caused ALOT of suffering. Communism as part and parcel of it's rhetoric was an atheistic system. That is NOT me trying to demonise atheism though, it's a simple fact of history. To qualify one's belief system in an attempt to pretend that it is somehow magically pure from human tendencies which include his darker side is unrealistic and only opens the door for more attrocity. If there is anything that is shown in history it is that mankind can and will kill for just about anything. Hell, I am sure people have killed for peanut butter preference.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



If you refer to Hitler I think not. Lenin had a chin beard?

Jewish Bolshevism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

White propaganda poster depicting a demonic Leon Trotsky wearing a Satanic Star, sitting near a pile of skeletons. The caption reads "Peace and Freedom in Soviet Russia."
Jewish Bolshevism, Judeo-Bolshevism, and Judeo-Communism is a pejorative stereotype [1] based on the notion that Jews are the driving force behind the modern Communist movement, specifically the Russian Bolsheviks.

The expression was the title of a pamphlet, The Jewish Bolshevism, and became current after the October Revolution (1917) in Russia, featuring prominently in the propaganda of the anti-communist "White" forces during the Russian Civil War. It spread worldwide in the 1920s with the publication and circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It made an issue out of the Jewishness of some leading Bolsheviks (most notably Leon Trotsky) during and after the October Revolution. Daniel Pipes says that "primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Whites spread these charges to an international audience."[2] James Webb writes: "t is rare to find an anti-Semitic source after 1917 which does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution."[3]

The label "Judeo-Bolshevism" was used in Nazi Germany to equate Jews with communists, implying that the communist movement served Jewish interests and/or that all Jews were communists END

Now one thing is for sure. These Bolsheviks used athesim to attempt to rid Russia of all organized religion. Hitler was not an atheist or a Bolshevik as modern Zionist would lead you to think.
This is just an attempt to define atheism. So that it can be weighed in conjunction to religion and it's believers.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 


Hey, if I am full of BS, then religion is BS in claiming to *only* be about love and peace.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Still haven't made it to beddy bye - but sirnex old pal - don't be such a curmudgeon - lighten up a bit and enjoy - our discussion has made me think and do some digging, research, and I've discovered some terrific blog sites with your point of view and my point of view represented by some heavy weight intellects - I'll pass those along to you - might be interesting for you - don't know but just in case -

And yeah there are plenty of individuals who call themselves believers that are full of it but as I have said repeatedly - I don't judge an entire group of people by their most obnoxious members - that's my MO for any group - atheists and believers inlcuded...
okies later... stay tuned for some good fun



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sinex it seems that you have completly lost this debate on more than one front. Are you ready to become a Christian and denounce The Evil one.
The Father of lies. The Founder of murders. Satan.
At the very least John the Matrix, Realshanti, and myself have aggresivly
shown there can be no compromise. It would be viewed as desent.
That's my take on things.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I don't understand, a few posts prior, you were defending Satan..


And you didn't seen to be doing it in a tongue and cheek kind of way either.

So let me get this straight, you don't believe in God but you do believe in Satan?

That's a strange choice for a belief don't you think?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 


Whatever you got please share. I actually like learning what I can when I can about anything.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Granted not all monotheists are violent by nature, just as not all atheists are, the one thing that does scare the feces out of me is if all monotheists followed their Gods command to the letter, us non-believers would have to go into hiding as he demands our death. I personally don't care if the monotheists want to change *that* aspect of their God, it would actually be great if they did and most certainly cause less dislike of their God. I mean, can't you guy's just take out all the atrocities and threats he does and leave only the good stuff? Sure the bible might be only three chapters after that, but at least he'd be less scary!

reply to post by randyvs
 



Well, obviously there can be no compromise, the two belief structures just don't allow it really. With atheism having no belief in any deity and the religious doctrines in some cases calling for the death of non-believers by their own Gods command. Unfortunately for JM, I don't have much respect for his arguments against atheism and science as he doesn't seem to be very sure enough of wtf he is on about.

reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


No, I don't believe in Satan nor the tooth fairy, but from a literary standpoint Satan isn't as bad as the religious folks seem to make him out to be. Point in case, God, not Satan is the sole creator of everything including one's capacity for evil. From scriptural evidence, God commits more acts of violence than Satan does. It is only *claimed* that Satan is the reason for evil without actually shown any true sense of evilness in him. Demanding equality or a right to be treated the same doesn't really sound evil to me. So, again, from a literary standpoint God appears to be more evil than Satan as he is the only one who acts as a tyrant, demands worship and commits genocides.

Contrary to popular belief, it is quiet possible to be an atheist and still look at the bible from a literary viewpoint and judge the fictional characters therein.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Show one evil act committed by Satan, just one. Job doesn't count as God granted Satan permission to mess with him, so he is an equal party. God created evil, not Satan, so if anyone is to take blame it is the almighty creator of *everything*.


You must be very mixed up in your thinking. Or actually a pseudo- atheist.
You attempt to use the existence of a biblical God to justify your disbelief in God. Messed up!
Satan did say this according to the Hebrews, " hey doll eat this fruit "



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Where am I using the existence of God to have a disbelief in God? lol

It's somewhat an impossibility to have a belief in God and a disbelief in God. As an atheist I have no belief in any form of supernatural entities. lol

From a literary viewpoint, Satan is not evil for giving mankind the gift of knowledge so that they may inherently understand the wrongs committed by a tyrannical genocidal being. You'd have to be a total tool to think Satan in the bible is the real force of evilness. God is the creator of everything, including one's capacity for evil, therefore he is to blame as he created evil tendencies. Or at least deems demanding being equal to himself as the most vile evil act anyone can commit. Gee, if equality is really that evil then we had an epic failure in granting women equality as God clearly states they are not equal at all.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


You condradict your information.

Now one thing is for sure. These Bolsheviks used athesim to attempt to rid Russia of all organized religion.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


You condradict your information.

Now one thing is for sure. These Bolsheviks used athesim to attempt to rid Russia of all organized religion.


How so? A quote of my info or some opposing info is apropos for a statement like that.
Maybe you are just in a hurry?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


That contradicts this:

This is just an attempt to define atheism. So that it can be weighed in conjunction to religion and it's believers.

In my opinion the whole thing is more than a little illogical on the part of atheists who try to insist that no one can or has killed for atheistic ideals. Particularly when they accept stated reasons at face value for other things yet qualify it when it deals with their beliefs. That somehow magically only atheism escapes or negates mankind's darker side.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Where am I using the existence of God to have a disbelief in God? lol

It's somewhat an impossibility to have a belief in God and a disbelief in God. As an atheist I have no belief in any form of supernatural entities. lol

From a literary viewpoint, Satan is not evil for giving mankind the gift of knowledge so that they may inherently understand the wrongs committed by a tyrannical genocidal being. You'd have to be a total tool to think Satan in the bible is the real force of evilness. God is the creator of everything, including one's capacity for evil, therefore he is to blame as he created evil tendencies. Or at least deems demanding being equal to himself as the most vile evil act anyone can commit. Gee, if equality is really that evil then we had an epic failure in granting women equality as God clearly states they are not equal at all.


Dude get a grip.
How can you describe a tyrannical genocidal BEING without acknowledging the BEING. When you acknowledge the being you acknowledge the existence of that BEING. How can you blame a god that you do not acknowledge.
Just fess up here. All you need to be a true born again Christian is a night or two in a fox hole. I can vouch for that. Find some peace for yourself.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Ah the paradox and contradiction inherent in blaming a being you claim to believe doesn't exist.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


That contradicts this:

This is just an attempt to define atheism. So that it can be weighed in conjunction to religion and it's believers.

In my opinion the whole thing is more than a little illogical on the part of atheists who try to insist that no one can or has killed for atheistic ideals. Particularly when they accept stated reasons at face value for other things yet qualify it when it deals with their beliefs. That somehow magically only atheism escapes or negates mankind's darker side.
[edit on 12-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Either you are screwing with me or you don't get it.
Atheists and killing do not have to go hand and hand. But militant atheism, concerning the Bolsheviks was used as an excuse, a tool, to murder the Tsar his, wife and several children in cold blood because they were Orthodox Christian. Bolsheviks were the original terrorists.
To convince someone to murder innocents requires a philosophy that says you answer to no God.
BUT you will answer to Marx's Master --Vladimir Lenin. You do know that Lenin outlawed organized religion in Russia. Don't you?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Just as "religion" and killing does not have to go hand in hand as some contend and I thought you were one of them. Perhaps I misunderstood.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Could a compromise be possible? This New York Times Op Ed guy seems to think so:

"Believers could scale back their conception of God's role in creation, and atheists could accept that some notions of 'higher purpose' are compatible with scientific materialism. And the two might learn to get along."

More at source:
www.nytimes.com...


Based on only the first page of responses, he's wrong. Basing that as well on the rabid attacks by anti-God types on all forums. Plus, common sense. Think about it; we are talking core beliefs of people here, and those that have such beliefs, no matter what side they fall one, are not going to compromise what they believe to get along with someone that disagrees. To do so would negate the belief.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


If they realised that their beliefs stops at anothers front yard so to speak they wouldn't have to view agreeing to disagree as a invalidation of their beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join